# New Discovery:Planck constant, Charge and mass related to Aether.

## Recommended Posts

Good Evening everyone!

I understand that the subject of this thread looks like to challenge accepted Science. Well, I would advise caution to those who would like to provoke this thread since what you are going to read below, it is actually mainstream Physics:

Planck Constant

$h=r_e\frac{m_ec^2}{V_A}=6.626068\bullet10^{-34}Joule/Hz$

$V_A=\frac{KQ_e^2}{h}=\frac{\alpha c}{2\pi}=348.43Km/sec$

Fine Structure Constant

$\alpha=\frac{2 \pi KQ_e^2}{hc}\Rightarrow\frac{\alpha}{2 \pi}=\frac{KQ_e^2}{hc}=\frac{V_A}{c}=\frac{A.Tang. Velocity}{Prop. Velocity©}$

$r_e:$ Electron's classical radius

$m_e:$ Electron's mass

$c:$ Propagation Velocity of light in vacuum

$V_A:$ Aether's Tangential Velocity (Universe Tangential Velocity)

Comment: Do not be surprised from the above since it is mainstream Physics (I did not add anything). The mystery of the fine structure constant is finally solved. It is the ratio between the Tangential Velocity of the Charge (due to its self-rotation) to the Propagation Velocity of light in vacuum.

Question(1): Is it possible the $V_A$ to be a propagation velocity or something else? (Please use the above information for your arguments or whatever else you like)

Question(2): if $V_A$ is Tangential Velocity, what are the consequence on cosmology and on quantum world?

About the development of charge and mass, will be revealed (you can do it by yourself too) after the solution of the above Questions. Anyone may participate on this challenge and especially the Phycisists of this forum (I will be very glad to hear their opinion!).

For those who are interested about my research, they may watch a brief Theory Presentation on my web site.

Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

Kind Regards

Ioannis Xydous

Electronic Engineer

Switzerland

##### Share on other sites

You do realize that the classical electron radius is not the physical size of the electron, right?

##### Share on other sites

You do realize that the classical electron radius is not the physical size of the electron, right?

Hi Staff!

Then why is it exist in the literature? Could you tell me what is the physical size of the Electron?

Why the below info exists which relates the fine structure constant with the classical electron radius, as also why is it still used in Thomson scattering (in some cases)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

From the moment the previous formulations (electron classical radius, fine structure constant and thomson scattering) exist in the literature and they are not fictioned (not of my imagination), then the challenge remains open.

Regards

Ioannis

##### Share on other sites

Hi Staff!

Then why is it exist in the literature? Could you tell me what is the physical size of the Electron?

It exists in literature because it was calculated based on a hypothesis (from classical physics, not QM, hence the name), and it remains a useful length scale. The experimentally determined size of the electron is consistent with it being a point particle. The experimental error limit is much, much smaller than the classical radius.

##### Share on other sites

It exists in literature because it was calculated based on a hypothesis (from classical physics, not QM, hence the name), and it remains a useful length scale. The experimentally determined size of the electron is consistent with it being a point particle. The experimental error limit is much, much smaller than the classical radius.

swansoft,

Well, please give me some time (I have some other obligations today) and I will develop my argument about your answer, but I will post a little bit later in the evening.

Kind Regards

Ioannis

##### Share on other sites

Comment: Do not be surprised from the above since it is mainstream Physics (I did not add anything).

Of course you did. You used crackpot numerological tautological physics.

You used numerology by labeling [imath]\frac{\alpha c}{2\pi}[/imath] as [imath]V_a[/imath].

You used crackpot physics by pretending that this [imath]V_a[/imath] represents something real, "the aether's tangential velocity", rather than just a numerological string of symbols that happen to have units of velocity.

You used tautology in that the Compton radius is defined in terms of the fine structure constant, the electron mass, the speed of light, and Plank's constant. Your first equation simplifies to [imath]h=h[/imath].

##### Share on other sites

Hi loannis!
I see your thread interesting. Can you please tell me any source from main stream, because everything out of box is considered crackpot invention, from the moderators.
Regard Kramer.

##### Share on other sites

Of course you did. You used crackpot numerological tautological physics.

You used numerology by labeling [imath]\frac{\alpha c}{2\pi}[/imath] as [imath]V_a[/imath].

You used crackpot physics by pretending that this [imath]V_a[/imath] represents something real, "the aether's tangential velocity", rather than just a numerological string of symbols that happen to have units of velocity.

You used tautology in that the Compton radius is defined in terms of the fine structure constant, the electron mass, the speed of light, and Plank's constant. Your first equation simplifies to [imath]h=h[/imath].

Is it a crackpot the grouping of parameters by giving them a name and especially when these parameters are constants?

OK, about the name "aether's tangential velocity", you can say whatever you like. I named it like this because I had a very special reason that I will reveal it a little bit later, if you have the courage to not close my thread.

And about h=h, what is the problem there? h=h, proves that the equation is not violated. Now to prove you my claim about the validity of the new expression, please read below:

$h f_{ce}=h\frac{c}{\lambda_{ce}}=m_ec^2\Rightarrow h=\frac{m_ec^2}{f_{ce}}$ eq.(1)

$and$

$h=r_e \frac{m_ec^2}{V_A}$ eq.(2)

Fine Structure Constant

$\alpha= \frac{2\pi KQ_e^2}{hc}\Rightarrow h=\frac{2\pi KQ_e^2}{\alpha c}$

and

$r_e= \frac{KQ_e^2}{m_ec^2}$

Comment: I mention the Fine Structure Constant and the Electron Classical Radius to remind you that there is no crackpot anywhere. Just a grouping of constants and naming took place.

Conclusively from eq.(1) and eq.(2): $f_{ce}=\frac{V_A}{r_e}$ eq.(3)

I do not see any kind of crackpot on the above since the value of Planck constant remains the same. The above is something very obvious but it was overlooked the last 70 years at least (from the discovery of the fine structure constant). Please think very carefully (without prejudices) and use your cold logic and knowledge in Physics about the below statement and question:

From the moment there is not any single violation on the above equations, eq. (3) reveals us that the frequency (corresponding to Compton's Wavelength) is related with a velocity $V_A$ and the geometrical radius $r_e$ of the Electron. It is known that the frequency of a photon (with Energy equals to the rest Energy of the Electron) is related by:

$f_{ce}= \frac{c}{\lambda_{ce}}$ eq.(4)

In eq.(4) the frequency equals the ratio between the propagation velocity of the E/M waves in vacuum and the wavelength of the propagating E/M wave (photon). The keywords to define the frequency of a wave, are:

The propagation velocity (light speed) and the wavelength which point to an oscillation process. The propagation velocity is just a translational velocity which has nothing to do with oscillation. The wavelength reveals that we speak about an oscillation.

Question: Eq.(3) tell us that the same frequency as calculated by eq.(4), is equal to the ration between of an unknown velocity "identity" ($V_A$) and the classical electron radius. Since the classical electron radius is not directly related to a wavelength (which is actually an E/M Radius) and it is strictly a geometrical radius, then is the ($V_A$) related to a propagation velocity?

The answer is definitely NO! Why? Because the definition of frequency must be depended by a parameter that is related to an oscillation. This means that ($V_A$) is 100% a tangential velocity.

The ultimate consequence is from the moment the Planck constant is related with the previous tangential velocity and since the Planck constant is a property of the vacuum, that reveals that the vacuum or better the entire Universe has a tangential velocity equals to 348.43Km/sec. This results to an absolute rotating frame (the Universe).

If you fail to understand the above then please close my thread. I am here to share my discoveries and not to play with imaginative and pointless theories. Of course I do not know or understand everything (I never will because I am just a human) and definitely the above is not crackpot, just plain logic. Those who insist that is crackpot, they fear about the revealed truth.

Regards

Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

Ioannis

Hi loannis!

I see your thread interesting. Can you please tell me any source from main stream, because everything out of box is considered crackpot invention, from the moderators.

Regard Kramer.

Hi Kramer!

If you are Physicist or even a person with interest in Physics and honest you may realize the above is not crackpot since there is not any violation of what we know. The value of the Planck constant remains intact. Crackpot are those who change the values of the constants (with re-normalization techniques) just to feet to their ideas. I did not do that.

And about some semi-indications about this tangential velocity, go to my web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ and on the web page I have a list with some old experiments where they were trying to measure our velocity in absolute space. The column with the velocities they measured (after a later re-processing of the data) they reveal indirectly what I mentioned above.

If you my thread remains open, there are more surprises under way where at least will amaze you, not impress you but because they are undoubtedly true!

Regards

Ioannis

##### Share on other sites

Okay, so you have rearranged some collection of physical constant, and we believe you have made no elementary error here. The question has to be "so what?".

Also, you have attached some significance to $\frac{\alpha \:c }{ 2 \pi}$. This is going to be the root of the "crackpottery" arguments: why the significance and the name "Aether's Tangential Velocity"?

##### Share on other sites

Okay, so you have rearranged some collection of physical constant, and we believe you have made no elementary error here. The question has to be "so what?".

Also, you have attached some significance to $\frac{\alpha \:c }{ 2 \pi}$. This is going to be the root of the "crackpottery" arguments: why the significance and the name "Aether's Tangential Velocity"?

Hi ajb!

I think you did not understand my arguments. I will respond to you a little bit later this evening.

Regards

Ioannis

##### Share on other sites

Hi ajb!

I think you did not understand my arguments. I will respond to you a little bit later this evening.

Regards

Ioannis

I don't understand the significance of what you call "Aether's Tangential Velocity".
##### Share on other sites

If you fail to understand the above then please close my thread.

Done.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
×