[Bored chemist]

No, I'm simply taking his word for it.

Whose word?

Yes, it's dead. The post of 17/04/2021 20:11:27 super-seeds the post of 17/04/2021 20:04:00.

I can keep the mass circle spinning smoothly and let the charge circle rotate at half the angular speed. In order for the electron to look the same after two mass circle rotations.

That still breaks the conservation laws for the same reasons as before.

That's what I mean by

still dragging the corpse around?

[talanum1 (OP)]

That still breaks the conservation laws for the same reasons as before.

How does it violate a conservation law? The electric charge circle rotates at 1/4 x the speed of the mass charge circle, but only the mass charge generates spin angular momentum. The electric charge circle does not carry mass charge so does not add or subtract spin angular momentum.

I don't see it breaking any conservation laws.

[Bored chemist]

I don't see it breaking any conservation laws.

Yes, but that's because you refuse to learn, isn't it?
The reason hasn't changed.

It breaks the energy conservation law for the same reason it always did..

Is it possible that the electron magnetic moment oscillates at a very rapid rate?

No.
Because, if it did, I could put one near a coil of wire and get it to generate free energy.

And, in terms of real physics, it breaks the angular momentum conservation laws too.

[talanum1 (OP)]

So, come up with a better model. How are you going to define something that doesn't look the same after one rotation without postulating internal change that depends on radians.

I have abandoned varying magnetic moment. I need the details of the perceived violation of Energy conservation.

[Bored chemist]

So, come up with a better model.

OK,
I will come up with... the usual model you find in the text books.

It may not be perfect, but at least it is not clearly impossible like yours.

So, the question is, why are you still clinging to a long dead model?

[talanum1 (OP)]

It's not dead. You can't give the details of how it violates Energy Conservation.

The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.

[Bored chemist]

The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.

It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?

The electric charge circle rotates at 1/4 x the speed of the mass charge circle

Looked at from the side, a rotation looks like an oscillation and an oscillating charge emits EM radiation.
I already said that.

Seriously, if you learn some science it will save both of us a lot of time.

Are you too lazy, or not bright enough?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Looked at from the side, a rotation looks like an oscillation and an oscillating

It's not really an oscillation. Looking at it isn't going to make it decide it's oscillating. Rotating charge is necessary for it to have a magnetic moment.

[Colin2B]

Looked at from the side, a rotation looks like an oscillation and an oscillating

Rotating charge is necessary for it to have a magnetic moment.

That’s not true. There is no requirement for the charge to rotate physically. As @Bored chemist says, spin is a word to describe a property not an actual motion.
Do you think quarks are painted in different colours?

[Bored chemist]

Looking at it isn't going to make it decide it's oscillating.

No, but looking at it might convince YOU that it is oscillating and thus will emit EM radiation.
Again, the problem is your refusal to think.

[talanum1 (OP)]

There is no requirement for the charge to rotate physically.

That's just what they tell you on order that they can claim the particle is a point. You must then come up with another explanation for the magnetic moment. My model explains it explicitly.

.
No, but looking at it might convince YOU that it is oscillating and thus will emit EM radiation.

It doesn't matter if I see it oscillating, it matters how it really is.

[Bored chemist]

There is no requirement for the charge to rotate physically.

That's just what they tell you on order that they can claim the particle is a point. You must then come up with another explanation for the magnetic moment. My model explains it explicitly.

.
No, but looking at it might convince YOU that it is oscillating and thus will emit EM radiation.

It doesn't matter if I see it oscillating, it matters how it really is.

Yes. And in reality, what oscillating charges do is continuously emit EM radiation.
So your model is wrong, because atoms don't.

[talanum1 (OP)]

The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.
It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?

One would think Bored chemist can read. If it's not really a rotation wouldn't it always look the same?

[Colin2B]

The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.
It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?

One would think Bored chemist can read. If it's not really a rotation wouldn't it always look the same?

Sounds more like a typo to me

[Bored chemist]

One would think Bored chemist can read.

Well, yes.

It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?

If I had said
"A duck is not really a cabbage, so why would they look the same?",
would you have understood that?

[talanum1 (OP)]

If I had said
"A duck is not really a cabbage, so why would they look the same?",
would you have understood that?

Yes, but what does it have to do with this:

The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.
It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?

[Bored chemist]

The thing called "spin" isn't really spin; why would it look like it?

[talanum1 (OP)]

In my model particles really spin. They need to tell you spin is some form in Plato's Forms, i.e. spin isn't really spin in order to claim particles are points.

[Bored chemist]

Given the experimental upper bound to the size of an electron, and it's apparent angular momentum and mass, please calculate the tangential velocity which your model predicts.
What about the proton?

Do you run into this problem?
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/spin.html

[talanum1 (OP)]

It predicts for the electron: 1*(what the J = mvr formula predicts, with r the maximum charge radius).

The proton model is not sufficiently developed yet.