<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hello Albrecht, Vivian and all,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Albrecht: Of course, if you say that an apple is essentially the same as an orange (despite their different properties) then you can also say that inertial mass is essentially the same as momentum (despite their different properties). But inertial mass is not the same as momentum, and apples are not the same as oranges. Inertial mass is a scalar quantity and momentum is a vector quantity, which is fundamentally different. They also have different physical units. My point is that inertial mass is NOT the same as momentum although they are related. A linearly moving photon has inertial mass hf/c^2 (while having no rest mass) as well as external momentum hf/c. A resting electron has inertial mass m= Eo/c^2 while having no (or minimal) external momentum. In circulating-photon electron models (which your electron model is not), the circulating photon also has inertial mass m=Eo/c^2=hf/c^2 of its circulating photon, and this inertial mass m of a resting electron is called the rest mass m of the electron, or simply the mass m of the electron. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Vivian: I think you are agreeing with Albrecht too quickly. Physicists have been trying hard to understand the nature of inertia since Newton failed to. Mach tried and failed. Several modern physicists such as Einstein, Woodward and Haisch et al have also tried unsuccessfully to explain the nature of inertial mass (the fact that the rest energy stored in a mass m is Eo=mc^2 is NOT in itself an explanation for inertial mass). The Higgs Field (as I understand it) also doesn’t explain inertial mass, although it may explain the origin of a particle's invariant mass as is claimed. Anyway, I won’t accept any explanation from you about particles and inertia as long as you continue to insist that the relativistic kinetic energy of a particle is KE = pc = gamma mv c (instead of the well-known experimentally established formula KE = (gamma - 1) mc^2 ) as you claim on p 13 in your article “A proposal for the structure and properties of the electron” (attached).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></body></html>