Inertia and Relativity

From that article: "Its mass is thus approximately the Planck mass," So... what was the electron mass again?

As the radius will decrease, its mass-density $$\frac{m}{V}$$ will increase.

Also, note the "hypothetical" in the first sentence.

So what.

As the radius will decrease, its mass-density $$\frac{m}{V}$$ will increase.
Are you suggesting electrons have variable radii? (Note: Planck particles are defined as having a fixed radius.)

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?

Yaa. This is so; as per my analysis, as per my equations.

Why do you think so? Can you elaborate?

Radius of Electron = 1544 fm?
Yaa. This is so; as per my analysis, as per my equations.

Seems you are not able to justify your statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant . See the equations for rest mass of electron in this link. Here $$R_\infty=\frac{m_ec_o\alpha^2}{2h}=\frac{\alpha^2}{2\lambda_e}$$. So $$m_e=\frac{h}{\lambda_ec_o}$$. From my equations $$m_er_e=\frac{4\hbar}{c}$$. So $$r_e=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{\lambda_ec_o}{h}=\frac{4\lambda_e}{2\pi}$$. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength. $$\frac{\lambda_e}{2\pi}=386fm$$ . So, $$r_e=4 \times 386=1544fm$$.

Last edited:
Hansda;

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 $$1.0$$ .

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?

Hansda;

Actually with this equality you can prove anything.....literally anything.

Seems you are getting the point.

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?

Here w is with respect to its spin axis. Intrinsic spin w can not be zero.

Actually with this equality you can prove anything.....literally anything.
Seems you are getting the point.
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.

Wow. If nothing else demonstrates that hansda doesn't understand science or math, this sure does.

Seems, you know science or math better. Did you observe anything wrong with my equation? Did you observe anything wrong in my analysis in post #247?

Next he's going to provide a proof that 1=2.

How?

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)?

This your equation is incorrect, Hansda. I will tell you something step by step.

Seems your logic is not correct.

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.

Do you think SR wrong? Einstein used Lorentz Transformation(LT) to prove his equation $$E=mc^2$$.

2. Mass is invariant, that means E = mc^2 will remain same in all inertial frames.

So?

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.

The intrinsic spin can change. I have explained this in my paper. This may cause increase of mass and time dilation at relativistic speed. Thats why I say LT, basically is a quantum phenimena.

4. Earth also spins around its axis, so can we say that for earth also E = mc2=iw2kw (whatever)?

My equation also can be applied to the Earth.

Seems your logic is not correct.
Rajesh has been perma-banned as a sock-puppet of a previously banned member.

Rajesh has been perma-banned as a sock-puppet of a previously banned member.

Ohh. I was not knowing this.