# Inertia and Relativity

From my equations, it is becoming so.
So a muon is smaller than an electron (and rotating faster, angularly speaking)? And a tauon yet smaller than that (and even faster in rotation)? Is there a minimum size, and thus a maximum mass a fundamental particle can have, and a maximum angular rotation speed?

Any spinning charged particle will create a vortex effect.
So now you are asserting the existence of a super fluidic aether as well?

So a muon is smaller than an electron (and rotating faster, angularly speaking)? And a tauon yet smaller than that (and even faster in rotation)? Is there a minimum size, and thus a maximum mass a fundamental particle can have, and a maximum angular rotation speed?

I have a set of four equations with four constants. massive, spinning particles can follow these equations.

So now you are asserting the existence of a super fluidic aether as well?

Did I say that?

I have a set of four equations with four constants. massive, spinning particles can follow these equations.
So what's the minimum size of a fundamental particle then?

Did I say that?
You implied it, by using that particular source, and by answering in the affirmative in your post #142.

So what's the minimum size of a fundamental particle then?

This all depend as per my equations.

You implied it, by using that particular source, and by answering in the affirmative in your post #142.

You asked a question. I just answered that.

This all depend as per my equations.
And you equations say...?

You asked a question. I just answered that.
No, you responded to it, you didn't actually answer it. So I'll ask you again: do you believe there is a super fluidic aether, just as the author of your linked derivation is working from?

As per my equations $$r_e=1544fm$$. Proton radius $$r_p=0.84fm$$. $$\frac{r_e}{r_p}=\frac{1544}{0.84}\simeq1838$$. This is very close to $$1836=\frac{m_p}{m_e}$$.

And you equations say...?

My equations are $$E=mc^2=hf=Iw^2k_2=Lwk_2$$ (1); $$I=mr^2k$$ (2); $$c=k_1rw$$ (3); $$w=2\pi fk_3$$ (4).

No, you responded to it, you didn't actually answer it. So I'll ask you again: do you believe there is a super fluidic aether, just as the author of your linked derivation is working from?

I am more interested with his math.

As per my equations $$r_e=1544fm$$. Proton radius $$r_p=0.84fm$$. $$\frac{r_e}{r_p}=\frac{1544}{0.84}\simeq1838$$. This is very close to $$1836=\frac{m_p}{m_e}$$.
Well, I guess we're done here. Your number of $$r_e=1544 fm$$ has been experimentally falsified, as I pointed out earlier; your radius is many million times too large. Conclusion: your hypothesis is proven wrong.

My equations are $$E=mc^2=hf=Iw^2k_2=Lwk_2$$ (1); $$I=mr^2k$$ (2); $$c=k_1rw$$ (3); $$w=2\pi fk_3$$ (4).
And what do they say about the minimum size of fundamental particles?

I am more interested with his math.
But his math comes from initial assumptions. He seems to be describing a particular situation (where the torques of the proton and electron cancel each other), which appears to stem from his initial assumptions about protons being vortices in a super fluidic aether. You can't just use his math (especially if there are not-so-standard quantities like "effective torque arm" involved) and ignore the initial assumptions that went into it. You have to demonstrate that his math holds up even without those initial assumptions.

Well, I guess we're done here. Your number of $$r_e=1544 fm$$ has been experimentally falsified, as I pointed out earlier; your radius is many million times too large. Conclusion: your hypothesis is proven wrong.

You can check constancy of $$mr=\frac{4\hbar}{c}$$ with proton mass and radius.

And what do they say about the minimum size of fundamental particles?

From my equations $$L=Iw=mr^2kw=mr\frac{k}{k_1}k_1rw=mrc\frac{k}{k_1}$$. Consider $$hf=Lwk_2=L2\pi fk_3$$ or $$L=\frac{\hbar}{k_2k_3}$$.We can write $$\frac{\hbar}{k_2k_3}=mrc\frac{k}{k_1}$$ or $$m=\frac{\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r}\frac{1}{k_1k_3}$$. Considering $$k_1k_3=\frac{1}{4}$$, we can write $$m=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r}$$. So as $$r$$ decreases, $$m$$ will increase.

But his math comes from initial assumptions. He seems to be describing a particular situation (where the torques of the proton and electron cancel each other), which appears to stem from his initial assumptions about protons being vortices in a super fluidic aether. You can't just use his math (especially if there are not-so-standard quantities like "effective torque arm" involved) and ignore the initial assumptions that went into it. You have to demonstrate that his math holds up even without those initial assumptions.

The author can better clarify your doubts.

You can check constancy of $$mr=\frac{4\hbar}{c}$$ with proton mass and radius.
Sure, it's consistent, but it's still wrong because it's contradicted by experimental evidence.

From my equations $$L=Iw=mr^2kw=mr\frac{k}{k_1}k_1rw=mrc\frac{k}{k_1}$$. Consider $$hf=Lwk_2=L2\pi fk_3$$ or $$L=\frac{\hbar}{k_2k_3}$$.We can write $$\frac{\hbar}{k_2k_3}=mrc\frac{k}{k_1}$$ or $$m=\frac{\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r}\frac{1}{k_1k_3}$$. Considering $$k_1k_3=\frac{1}{4}$$, we can write $$m=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r}$$. So as $$r$$ decreases, $$m$$ will increase.
You keep dodging the question. What do your equations say about the minimum radius of fundamental particles?

The author can better clarify your doubts.
Sure, so why don't you contact him to find out if his equations and derivations can be used in your scenario?

Sure, it's consistent, but it's still wrong because it's contradicted by experimental evidence.
Which experimental evidence? Proton radius or electron radius?

You keep dodging the question. What do your equations say about the minimum radius of fundamental particles?
I think Planck distance can be the theoretical minimal distance.

Sure, so why don't you contact him to find out if his equations and derivations can be used in your scenario?

I found his equations and my equations are matching. He might have seen my equations.

Which experimental evidence? Proton radius or electron radius?
See post #133, which referenced the evidence posted back in post #57.

I think Planck distance can be the theoretical minimal distance.
But what do your equations say about the minimum radius of fundamental particles?

I found his equations and my equations are matching. He might have seen my equations.
No, your equations don't merely match: you used his equations to back up your claims, thus suggesting that there's a super fluid aether, and that the proton is a vortex in this aether. As I said: you can't use his equations without also accepting his initial assumptions.

See post #133, which referenced the evidence posted back in post #57.

So you talk about electron radius. I dont think that experiment is complete. There may be experimental error also.

But what do your equations say about the minimum radius of fundamental particles?

Well minimum or maximum radius should be such that tangential speed does not exceed c.

No, your equations don't merely match: you used his equations to back up your claims, thus suggesting that there's a super fluid aether, and that the proton is a vortex in this aether. As I said: you can't use his equations without also accepting his initial assumptions.

He observed $$mr$$ as constant. I am also observing $$mr$$ as constant.

So you talk about electron radius. I dont think that experiment is complete. There may be experimental error also.
Except that there isn't something wrong with it, or at the very least, you haven't shown anything of the sorts. You're just making baseless claims and assertions because experimental evidence has already disproven your hypothesis.

Also remember that this is the same type of experimental set-up you touted as proof that the electron has a non-zero radius (although that statement turned out to be unsourced). Why wasn't that experimental error too?

Well minimum or maximum radius should be such that tangential speed does not exceed c.
But what do your equations say about the minimum radius of fundamental particles?

He observed $$mr$$ as constant. I am also observing $$mr$$ as constant.
But are you also claiming that the proton is a vortex in a super fluid aether?

Except that there isn't something wrong with it, or at the very least, you haven't shown anything of the sorts. You're just making baseless claims and assertions because experimental evidence has already disproven your hypothesis.

That experiment has no math in it, to back up their result. Anyway, I have already proven that your superluminal electron tangential speed claim as wrong.

Also remember that this is the same type of experimental set-up you touted as proof that the electron has a non-zero radius (although that statement turned out to be unsourced). Why wasn't that experimental error too?

Do you have any math for this?

But what do your equations say about the minimum radius of fundamental particles?

Consider $$E= mc^2=hf$$. So, $$m=\frac{hf}{c^2}$$. Earlier we observed $$mr=\frac{4\hbar}{c}$$. So $$m=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r}$$. We can write $$\frac{hf}{c^2}=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r}$$ or $$r=\frac{4c}{2\pi f}=\frac{4\lambda}{2\pi}$$. Thus minimum radius correspond to minimum $$\lambda$$ or maximum $$f$$.

But are you also claiming that the proton is a vortex in a super fluid aether?

Dont go by the words. Words may be confusing. Go by the math. Has he used any math for ether?

That experiment has no math in it, to back up their result.
Irrelevant; experimental data trumps mathematics when it comes to reality.

Anyway, I have already proven that your superluminal electron tangential speed claim as wrong.
Well, the thing is, typically, at some point during that calculation, one uses the radius of the particle. As I've proven, the value of the radius you are using is many orders of magnitude off, and proven to be incorrect. So I strongly suspect your conclusion is incorrect in exactly the same way.

Do you have any math for this?
You are the one claiming that one experiment is wrong, and the other is right. It is you who has to do the proving.

Consider $$E= mc^2=hf$$. So, $$m=\frac{hf}{c^2}$$. Earlier we observed $$mr=\frac{4\hbar}{c}$$. So $$m=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r}$$. We can write $$\frac{hf}{c^2}=\frac{4\hbar}{c}\frac{1}{r}$$ or $$r=\frac{4c}{2\pi f}=\frac{4\lambda}{2\pi}$$. Thus minimum radius correspond to minimum $$\lambda$$ or maximum $$f$$.
You once again haven't answer the question: that's merely the radius as a function of frequency or wavelength. My question is: what's the absolute minimum radius that a fundamental particle can have?

Dont go by the words. Words may be confusing. Go by the math. Has he used any math for ether?
Well, has he? I mean, you are using his math, so you should have already checked that out.

Not only that, but you're wrong. Let me illustrate: assume all particles are massless. Then: $$E=pc$$. Look! I've just proven $$E=mc^2$$ wrong! Words (and context) is important, because it can change what particular variables mean, or in which circumstances they are valid. For example, if he used particular definitions, simplifications, or approximations that are only valid if there is super fluid aether, then this results are only valid under those particular circumstances. By using this equations, you are then importing those circumstances into your hypothesis. You can't just take a bunch of maths without context, throw it on a pile, and get anything trustworthy out of it. Thinking otherwise is extremely naïve, and is a clear sign of crackpottery.

Well, the thing is, typically, at some point during that calculation, one uses the radius of the particle. As I've proven, the value of the radius you are using is many orders of magnitude off, and proven to be incorrect. So I strongly suspect your conclusion is incorrect in exactly the same way.

If you still insists that electron tangential speed is superluminal; this violates SR.

You once again haven't answer the question: that's merely the radius as a function of frequency or wavelength. My question is: what's the absolute minimum radius that a fundamental particle can have?

What kind of answer you expect. You can give some example.

Well, has he? I mean, you are using his math, so you should have already checked that out.

Not only that, but you're wrong. Let me illustrate: assume all particles are massless. Then: $$E=pc$$. Look! I've just proven $$E=mc^2$$ wrong! Words (and context) is important, because it can change what particular variables mean, or in which circumstances they are valid. For example, if he used particular definitions, simplifications, or approximations that are only valid if there is super fluid aether, then this results are only valid under those particular circumstances. By using this equations, you are then importing those circumstances into your hypothesis. You can't just take a bunch of maths without context, throw it on a pile, and get anything trustworthy out of it. Thinking otherwise is extremely naïve, and is a clear sign of crackpottery.

I did not observe any math for erher.