The derivation of the Sommerfeld FSC alpha you can find in this video too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUhxF-ouTaQ&t=6s

restmass depends on alpha (first)

charge depends on alpha (second)

yes alpha is due to a decay process of mass! (defining a 3D space as an GR invariant for today)

Manfred Geilhaupt

The formulation of the problem starts with a time-dependent mass. That seems problematic since we are trying to calculate a static mass.

It would have made more sense to write the equation in terms of the Moment of Ineria.

I don't see a reason to introduce Gravitation to the problem, that said, if I had seen a final value for the mass (perhaps a time averaged mass), I wouldn't complain.

The calculation is done. Did you try it on a proton?

###################################

I watched the video and left with the impression that the mass wasn't calculated. I didn't see a number. Also, if you can calculate the mass of the electron, you should be able to calculate the proton's mass. The observables are the same (spin, mass, charge).

With respect to Einstein saying that a theory where mass is defined is not a theory, he is wrong. In my theory, the states for the electron and proton are quantum states. You can characterize the potential and solve a Schrodinger Equation, or you can measure all eigenstates and thus characterize the potential, too. I only need the two states (electron and proton) in my theory. I derived all particles and isotopes with those two states, so there is no need to introduce more parameters to the model.

In summary, Einstein was wrong again.

Marco Pereira

we are trying to calculate a static mass.

NATURE IS DYNAMIC NOT STATIC

I don't see a reason to introduce Gravitation to the problem,

YES GR IS CORRECT

that said, if I had seen a final value for the mass (perhaps a time averaged mass), ..

ELECTRONS RESTMASS IS A ROOT-TIME-MEAN-SQUARE OR EFFECTIVE VALUE

Did you try it on a proton?

YES THE PROBLEM IS THE QUANTUM NUMBER Np(UP AND DOWN of quarks)

I watched the video and left with the impression that the mass wasn't calculated.

yes see Preprint Water-Drops and what do they tell us physically else?

as a first sept if you like

With respect to Einstein saying that a theory where mass is defined (A PRIORI) is not a theory, he is wrong.

YES not wrong But INCOMPLETE THEORY

I only need the two states (electron and proton) in my theory.

where can I see this?

so there is no need to introduce more parameters to the model.

A model should be possible to be invented after a principle theory without model, is Einsteins Way of Thinking.

In summary, Einstein was wrong again.

Sorry NO. incomplete only.

best wishes

M.

By the way:

The last word has the experiment, always.

GR (Einstein)+TD(principles) predict without model used that mass and charge depend on Sommerfeld FSC

alpha=1/beta^2*1/g44*3/4*(1+ln(1/3))^2

And alpha depends on the metric of GR mass distribution. So if the g44-metric change - if my theory is correct - the mass and charge change size.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTED IN MAINSTREAM. BUT GR+TD IS MAINSTREAM.

The last word has the experiment, always.

Manfred Geilhaupt

I don't know why are you to shy. If you calculated a number for the mass of the electron say it or write it down. Don't ask me to spend time reading yet another paper.

With respect to the proton, just say: I failed. That is ok.

There is nothing distinct between electron and proton. They are both defined by mass, spin, charge. You are assuming a volume for the electron and using the wrong model for a spinning top - your model is not really Physics. The electron is not in an orbit of radius r and velocity v. That is nonsense.

In other words, the basis of the model is wrong.

The reason I asked for the proton mass is to make sure you are not just getting a tautology from your model.

With respect to "The Last Word has the experiment, always", here are the parameterless predictions of the SN1a data:

I did this without Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflaton Field, Bing Bang, Singularity, False Vacuum Decay, Planck Mass, and the rest of the peripheral model accompanying GR.

In other words, you cannot say: GR is not wrong without addressing the rest.

You cannot say anything about "The last word" if you cannot do better than I did with respect to the SN1a (the fundamental observation in Cosmology, which is the main topic of GR).

Best wishes,

Marco

Manfred Geilhaupt

Here you have the r_g depending upon the mass of the electron.

I suppose m(alpha), which seems to be the mass of the electron parameterize on alpha, depends upon r_g.

That is the kind of derivation that is plagued with tautology.

when you derive Y from parameters that are a function of Y.

@Manfred Geilhaupt

The other problem is the mixing of Thermodynamics with Dynamics. The mass of electron is being calculated from dynamics (the modeling of a spinning top that magically becomes a torus).

Nope. These don't mix and that is why your model is not accepted or considered.

Manfred Geilhaupt

I take it back. The table is quite convincing in supporting a torus as the topology for the electron, muon, proton.

In other words, the initial modeling of the problem might be ok.

IF the rest of the model were correct, you would have been able to calculate all the masses (at least for these three particles).

If you failed to calculate the proton, that means there is an error in the rest of the model.

The likely culprits are Thermodynamics and Einstein.

Manfred Geilhaupt

What is the relationship between m(alpha) and rg.

What is the value of N for the electron? 1?

I calculated the mass of the electron from your equation. It doesn't match the mass of the electron (experimental result).

Marco Pereira That is the kind of derivation that is plagued with tautology.

NO! Why?

• There is a Differential Equation (my invention, new in physics!) The solution you need to find is r(t)! So then you might calculate the effective value of r(t) I name it r_G!
• If you put r(t) into the DE you can calculate m(t). Then you can calculate the effective value of m(t) and you get m_e
• If you then take the Spin=1/2*h_bar (as you do) and use now my m_e and r_G, the effective values from theory, you find;

m_e*c*r_G=1/2*h_bar this is equivalent with the Spin from QM!

Notice: still here there is no model, only a DE and the solution.

______________________________________________________

What is the relationship between m(alpha) and rg.

What is the value of N for the electron? 1?

_____________________________________________________

See below

The other problem is the mixing of Thermodynamics with Dynamics.

NO! Why?

I only apply the TD principles incorporated into my solution r(t). This is crazy but never done before. AND SUCCESSFUL: m(alpha,N) and e(alpha) and alpha from a 2principle theories (GR+TD)

THE MODEL I invented EXISTS ONLY TO HAVE A PICTURE: seeing r(t)*u(t) working or so.

I don't know why are you to shy. If you calculated a number for the mass of the electron say it or write it down.

m(alpha,N) exists because of my solution! See N below.

alpha says mass depends on the metric of space (possible to be tested)

N says mass is quantised: I only have an idea what role N should play. But the theory does not give a Quantum Number (like Schrödinger gives for hydrogen etc) My theoretical problem left. But see Ne, Nmy, Nt (Pythagorean Triple and New Einstein Invariance used to work with math and physics, no perfect theory, so shy part useful to make it clear.)

The likely culprits are Thermodynamics and Einstein. And me I think the only one concerning electron question. TD is correct and Einstein still correct. My results need to be accepted by experiments.

Marco Pereira In other words, you cannot say: GR is not wrong without addressing the rest.

INCOMPLETE IS MORE CORRECT HERE, I think.

You cannot say anything about "The last word" if you cannot do better than I did with respect to the SN1a (the fundamental observation in Cosmology, which is the main topic of GR).

If I use "last word" I (only) mean my results need to be still proved by experiment. Yours looking brilliant. So why GR should be wrong when you succeed here and GR not?

Manfred Geilhaupt

I plugged the values into your formula for m(alpha). I used N=1 since one would expect N for the electron to be the ground state.

I didn't get the mass of the electron. Why is that? How should one interpret that formula if not as a formula to calculate the mass of the electron?

If this is not correct, do you have a Python calculation for the mass of the electron? You said you calculated the mass of the electron, but I would like to see the value you calculated.

You asked: So why GR should be wrong when you succeed here and GR not?

Well, it is very simple. I derived the laws of nature and reproduced all Einstein's successes. In addition, I predicted the SN1a data without any parameters (the 4D radius is derived from short-distance SN1a measurements and the G-dependence is predicted to be between a small range, which it is).

So, I predicted the SN1a observations without space stretching, Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

I also explain all the other observations (Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve, Early Galaxy Formation, Bullet Cluster Collision, etc) without Dark Matter.

Here you can see the evolution of the M33 galaxy across billion of years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3buediDHUU

Here I used the CMB (modeled using Hyperspherical Harmonics and the Big Pop Cosmogenesis model for the creation of the Universe) to derive the galaxy density distribution across the observable and unobservable universe. Here is the observable universe map:

https://youtu.be/MLqkbCAzcJM

Attached is the Perihelion Precession for all planets where you can see where Einstein got it wrong and by how much (it was in Mercury). I also calculated the Solar Eclipse deviation to be 1.75 arcseconds and provided a Gravitational Poynting Vector from which you can readily calculate Gravitational Energy Irradiation Power.

I also calculated the dimensionality probability distribution function for the universe and explained Dimensionality Reduction (we live in a 4D spatial manifold but can only traverse at will within the 3D hypersurface).

I also showed that Einstein was never able to lift the Twin Paradox and that is the reason Relativity is essentially wrong.

GR cannot do those things and HU can do everything GR can do with a simple formula for the force:

Thanks

Marco

Marco Pereira I plugged the values into your formula for m(alpha). I used N=1 since one would expect N for the electron to be the ground state.

Of course in a first step I used alpha(Codata=1/137.035999084) and G(Codata) G is the most uncertain value. And N about 10^22 (1988) gives back G. How you do not misunderstand me now. (h, c, G) need to be set a priori from a theoretical point of view!

But in 2000 I found out how to calculate alpha=1/137.035999024 from my aspect. The I got Ne=3*N1*N2*N3. (I gave you) So the remaining problem was G. That's why I tried unofficial to get G from my approach combined with experimental data from me.

PS I use Matlab (or excel to check if the values are the same). Will show you. Need to look back. G today is different from 1986 My private G=6.67432422*10^-11... today is like G Codata up to 8 digits "correct" May be you need it for test?

Marco Pereira Our work models spiral galaxies as cylinders with two exponentially decaying mass densities.

Preprint IS THERE A SPIRAL GALAXY ROTATION CURVE CONUNDRUM?

GR+TD predicts the same. The mass depends on the age of mass. Older part less mass absolute! (No calculation only conservation of angular momentum)

Marco Pereira I used N=1 since one would expect N for the electron to be the ground state.

NO m=...1/N The number Ne is very important to be derived from theory. My speculation about. So theoretical problem left. N for Electron Neutrinos increases about 10^6 (0.17eV) 10^5 (1.7eV) 10^4.. 10^3..*Ne only example what might be here due to N not restricted. But need to be.

Manfred Geilhaupt

You said: N about 10^22 (1988) gives back G

Could you show me the derivation of N? What is its meaning?

Manfred Geilhaupt

If you insist on using GR+TD, you don't have a theory since GR is wrong and Thermodynamics does not apply to the rotation curve of spiral galaxies.

If you got that N=1E22 from the magic sac, you don't have a theory again.

Consider what I mean when I explain the Fine Structure Constant. Starting from my dilaton field in its simple form

When I explained the meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, my theory predicted the exact law of electrostatics (Gauss Law), so I predicted the correct alpha. The physical explanation using 4D hyperspherical shells in each step was off by 3.38%, corresponding to four states' lifetimes.

Imagine if I had to introduce a constant of 1E22 in my theory. Who would consider it acceptable?

Marco Pereira

21.8042 from where do you get this number?

Marco Pereira

Ne=10^22 is not correct. It was a hypothesis only. You are right. I do not have the exact Value Ne=3*N1*N2*N3 from a principle theory it is a hypothesis like 3 quarks exist and not 2. (Here because Electron Muon and Tau do exist, is a good argument for N1,N2,N3.)

• GR is correct
• TD applies to all
• alpha=.... from a principle theory derived.