From that article: "Its mass is thus approximately the Planck mass," So... what was the electron mass again?You can check planck particle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_particle .
From that article: "Its mass is thus approximately the Planck mass," So... what was the electron mass again?
Also, note the "hypothetical" in the first sentence.
Are you suggesting electrons have variable radii? (Note: Planck particles are defined as having a fixed radius.)As the radius will decrease, its mass-density $$\frac{m}{V} $$ will increase.
The existence of electron is quite well proven. So, why do you think the concept of a Planck particle hasn't been connected to electrons before by scientists?So what.
Yaa. This is so; as per my analysis, as per my equations.
If your hypo says electron radius is 1544 fm, then something wrong with your hypo.
Radius of Electron = 1544 fm?
Yaa. This is so; as per my analysis, as per my equations.
If your hypo says electron radius is 1544 fm, then something wrong with your hypo.
So, Einstein's equation $$E=mc^2 $$, can rewritten in terms of $$I $$ as $$E=mc^2=Iw^2k_2 $$ , where $$k_2 $$ is some constant, whoose value can be from $$0.5 $$ to $$1.0 $$ .
Hansda;
Your post #17
Actually with this equality you can prove anything.....literally anything.
For example, mass is invariant but not the w, consider two neighborhood electrons spinning at same w, and you as observer park yourself on one of the electrons, so for the other electron you will see w = 0, and hence as per your equality mc^2 = 0, so electron mass = 0. Do you see that your proof of r = 1544 fm, fails in #17 itself?
Wow. If nothing else demonstrates that hansda doesn't understand science or math, this sure does.Seems you are getting the point.Actually with this equality you can prove anything.....literally anything.
Wow. If nothing else demonstrates that hansda doesn't understand science or math, this sure does.
Next he's going to provide a proof that 1=2.
Based on my equation $$E=mc^2=hf=Iw^2k_2=Lwk_2 $$ , I have written a small paper. This can be seen here https://www.academia.edu/36358589/E_mc_2_hf_Iw_2k_2_Lwk_2 .
This your equation is incorrect, Hansda. I will tell you something step by step.
1. E = mc2 is primarly SR baby. SR emphasizes that all physical laws are same in all inertial frames. So by using E = mc2, you acknowledge validity of SR.
2. Mass is invariant, that means E = mc^2 will remain same in all inertial frames.
3. w is not invariant, that changes from frame to frame, L is also not invariant.
You can make a claim that it is intrinsic spin, but then dont about frame/Axis.
4. Earth also spins around its axis, so can we say that for earth also E = mc2=iw2kw (whatever)?
Rajesh has been perma-banned as a sock-puppet of a previously banned member.Seems your logic is not correct.
Rajesh has been perma-banned as a sock-puppet of a previously banned member.