

.
by
Gamal A. Nasser
Faculty of science, Mansoura University, Egypt
Email: chem.gamal@hotmail.com
.
.
Abstract
This model is development of solid nuclear models. Like FCC model, this model can account for nuclear properties that have been explained by different models. This model gives more accurate explanation for some nuclear properties which are Asymmetric fission, Nuclear binding energy and the most bound nuclei, Natural radioactivity and Number of neutrons in nuclei depending on the structures of these nuclei. The structures of nuclei in this model have special advantage, as there is separation between lattice positions of similar nucleons giving new concept for nuclear force.
.
.
.
by
.
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, ISERVE, Alakapuri
Hyderabad35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
S.Lakshminarayana
Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
Abstract
Point of ‘big bang’ can be considered as the center or characteristic reference point of cosmic expansion in all directions.
If so, the existence of ‘preferred direction’ in the universe may not be wrong.
Based on the Mach’s principle, it can be suggested that, within the ‘Hubble volume’ overall distribution of ‘Hubble mass’ will explain the
observed physical phenomena.
With the discovered applications it is very clear to say that, without a joint and unified study of cosmology and atomic & particle physics, one should not deny the concepts of black hole cosmology.
The most interesting thing is that, at any given cosmic time, if the universe is a primordial growing black hole, then certainly its ‘Schwarzschild radius’ can be considered as its characteristic minimum size at that time.
Clearly speaking, “forever rotating at light speed, high temperature and high angular velocity small sized primordial cosmic black hole gradually transforms into a low temperature and low angular velocity large sized massive primordial cosmic black hole”.
Independent of the redshift observations and considering the proposed relations, with a great confidence now one can start seeing/observing the universe as a primordial expanding and light speed rotating black hole. Based on the proposed relations and concepts of black hole cosmology, definitions of cosmic homogeneity and cosmic isotropy must be readdressed.
It is also clear that, now the black hole universe is expanding in a decelerating mode at a very small rate in such a way that with current technology one cannot measure its deceleration rate.
Finally it can be suggested that cosmic acceleration and dark energy can be considered as pure mathematical concepts and there exists no physical base behind their affirmation.
For the most serious cosmologists this may be a bitter news, but it is a fact.
Authors hope that, by 2015 definitely this subject will come into main stream physics.
With reference to Black hole cosmology, it can be suggested that, characteristic nuclear charge radius and the characteristic angular momentum of the revolving electron increase with cosmic time.
In addition, characteristic nuclear charge radius is more fundamental than the reduced Planck’s constant.
The key point to be noted is that the Planck’s constant can be considered as a cosmological constant.
.
.
.
by Jacques Chauveheid
If quantum mechanics can provide quantitative expressions of forces in conformity with the work of Erhenfest and the principle of correspondence, recognized quantitative expressions for nuclear and weak forces do not currently exist. In addition, the four basic forces do not depend on temperature, since measured in vacuum between particles.
In one of his books, Abraham Pais recalled a comment by Rutherford during the 19141919 period: “the Coulomb forces dominate if v (speed of alpha particles) is sufficiently small”, evidencing by these words the velocitydependence of the strongnuclear force. However, since Rutherford did not apparently refer to temperature, optimal conditions for nuclear fusion do not necessarily arise in disordered configurations characterized by extremely high temperatures, such as those encountered in stars like the sun. Even compared with galaxy formation, hot fusion in many stars seems the slowest and most inefficient physical phenomenon in the universe, because the sun’s ten billion year lifetime has an order of magnitude similar to the age of the universe, this circumstance having been highly beneficial for the life on earth.
Although not based on equations, Rutherford’s conclusion constitutes the essence of the “cold” approach to nuclear fusion and reactions starting from moderate energy levels, instead of extreme temperatures hardly controlling with precision the physical parameters ruling nuclear phenomena. In this view, a better theoretical understanding of these parameters will help nuclear technologies.
. B. Theoretical antecedents
Eddington mentioned the concept of asymmetric affine connection in 1921 and pointed out applications in microphysics, but he did not pursue this idea [5]. In 1922, Elie Cartan introduced geometric torsion, as the antisymmetric part of an asymmetric affine connection. In May 1929, Cartan wrote a letter to Einstein in which he recommended the use of the differential formalism he developed, but Einstein did not follow Cartan’s advice.
Between 1944 and 1950, J. Mariani published four papers dealing with astrophysical magnetism and introduced an “ansatz” structurally similar to that used in the present theory. The German word “ansatz”, used by Ernst Schmutzer (correspondence), refers to a supposed relationship between fields of distinct origin, for example geometric contrasting with physical. Einstein also used an ansatz when he identified gravitation with the 4space metric, but he did not put it in the form of an equation, presumably because being trivial.
The organization of the paper is the following: Section II details the Lagrangian formulation and the calculus of variations. Section III is about field equations and quantitative expressions of forces. Section IV introduces the shortrange force between charged particles, first referred to as strongnuclear between nucleons. Section V is on Yukawa and complexity. Section VI details the shortrange forces in both systems electronproton and electronneutron, evidencing a weak nuclear mechanism in LENR technologies.
When not stated otherwise, mathematical conventions are those of reference. . . Read the whole article . Abstract
In recent years there has been a dramatic progress in the understanding of the nonperturbative structure of various physical theories.
In particular string theory has been vastly developed during these years, where a lot of duality conjectures between the different string theories have arisen.
The introductory text of this thesis is an attempt to describe this development in short and to make a brief overview of the subject.
Special focus is put on solitonic solutions in various field theories, which is the corner stone for these duality conjectures.
The introduction of supersymmetry is also essential for the understanding of duality by its natural way of handling BPSstates through the algebra.
In string theory, which is not only a supersymmetric theory but also includes gravity, these studies are put together through the discovery of various pbrane solutions to the background field equations.
The geometrical structure of these solutions is studied in some of the papers in this thesis.
In a generalization to the treatment of pbranes as solutions which break the local vacuum symmetry, the theory of almost product structures (APStheory) has arisen as the natural candidate to the study of the intricate geometry of these solutions.
The last two papers deal with this ansatz where it is also seen that APStheory is the most natural way of treating all kinds of splitting of manifolds including fibrations, YangMills theoryand KaluzaKlein theory.
.
.
.
by
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary Faculty, Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas(ISERVE)
Hyderabad35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam03, AP, India
Email:lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
. Abstract by
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary Faculty, Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas(ISERVE)
Hyderabad35, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
.
Introduction
Now as recently reported at the American Astronomical Society a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were the first that leads galaxy growth. The implication is that the black holes started growing first. Initially astrophysicists attempted to explain the presence of these black holes by describing the evolution of galaxies as gathering mass until black holes format their center but further observation demanded that the galactic central black hole coevolved with the galactic bulge plasma dynamics and the galactic arms. This is a fundamental confirmation of N. Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of “different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size”.
This clearly suggests that: galaxy constitutes a central black hole; the central black hole grows first; Star and galaxy growth goes parallel or later to the central black holes growth. The fundamental questions are: If “black hole” is the result of a collapsing star, how and why a stable galaxy contains a black hole at its center? Where does the central black hole comes from? How the galaxy center will grow like a black hole? How its event horizon exists with growing? If these are the observed and believed facts — not only for the author — this is a big problem for the whole science community to be understood.
Any how, the important point to be noted here is that “due to some unknown reason galactic central black holes are growing”! This is the key point for the beginning of the proposed expanding or growing cosmic black hole! See this latest published reference for the “black hole universe”. In our daily life generally it is observed that any animal or fruit or human beings (from birth to death) grows with closed boundaries (irregular shapes also can have a closed boundary). An apple grows like an apple. An elephant grows like an elephant. A plant grows like a plant. A human grows like a human. Through out their lifetime they won’t change their respective identities. These are observed facts. From these observed facts it can be suggested that “growth” or “expansion” can be possible with a closed boundary. By any reason if the closed boundary is opened it leads to “destruction” rather than “growth or expansion”. Thinking that nature loves symmetry, in a heuristic approach in this paper author assumes that“ through out its lifetime universe is a black hole”. Even though it is growing, at any time it is having an event horizon with a closed boundary and thus it retains her identity as a black hole forever. Note that universe is an independent body. It may have its own set of laws. At any time if universe maintains a closed boundary to have its size minimum at that time it must follow “strong gravity” at that time.
If universe is having no black hole structure any massive body(which is bound to the universe) may not show a black hole structure. That is black hole structure may be a subset of cosmic structure. This idea may be given a chance.
Rotation is a universal phenomenon. We know that black holes are having rotation and are not stationary. Recent observations indicates that black holes are spinning close to speed of light.
In this paper author made an attempt to give an outline of “expanding and light speed rotating black hole universe” that follows strong gravity from its birth to end of expansion.
Stephen Hawking in his famous book A Brief History of Time, in Chapter 3 which is entitled The Expanding Universe, says: “Friedmann made two very simple assumptions about the universe: that the universe looks identical in which ever direction we look, and that this would also be true if we were observing the universe from anywhere else. From these two ideas alone, Friedmann showed that we should not expect the universe to be static. In fact, in 1922, several years before Edwin Hubble’s discovery, Friedmann predicted exactly what Hubble found… We have no scientific evidence for, or against, the Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe”.
From this statement it is very clear and can be suggested that, the possibility for a “closed universe” and a “flat universe” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of a “closed universe”.
Clearly speaking, from Hubble’s observations and interpretations in 1929, the possibility of “galaxy receding” and “galaxy revolution” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of “rotating universe”.
.
.
. Read the whole article . Advances in the field of cold fusion and the recent success of the nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, in which the energy release cannot be explained by a chemical process, need a deeper understanding of the nuclear reactions and, more particularly, the possibility for modification of the Coulomb barrier. The current theoretical understanding based on high temperature fusion does not offer an explanation for the cold fusion or LENR. The treatise “Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory”, based on an alternative concept of the physical vacuum, provides an explanation from a new point of view by using derived threedimensional structures of the atomic nuclei. For explanation of the nuclear energy, a hypothesis of a field microcurvature around the superdense nucleus is suggested. The new theoretical approach in the analysis of some successful cold fusion experiments resulted in practical considerations for modification of the Coulomb barrier. A possibility of another cold fusion reaction is predicted due to some similarity between the nuclear structures of Ni and Cr. by
Lino Daddi
Retired Earlier Professor
at Naval Academy Leghorn, Italy
Abstract
They are considered the roles of miniatoms and virtual neutrons in LENR reactions of hydrogen and deuterium absorbed in solids.
Has highlighted the role of virtual neutrons in restructuring of the nucleus, when the strong force provides the required energy for the virtual neutrons becomes real neutrons.
Some behaviors can be facilitated in hydrogen by alternation of the protonelectron system between the condition of miniatom and the condition of virtual neutron. This alternation could increase range and duration of the compressed system <p/e> to allow the proton to meet with a nucleus of the solid. . Read the whole article .
Introduction
These pages have been given to me from Prof. Sergio Focardi, when I asked him to help me with math to set up my theory.
These pages have been very important to me and I hope will be as much useful to our readers.
This way, Prof. Focardi continues to teach.
.
Andrea Rossi
.
P.S.
The notes are mine. Therefore may be wrong.
.
.
.
by This article is really about the neutrino. How can such a small particle with no electric charge and very little mass (if any) control the destiny of the world and all living things?
Listen, the radioactive nuclear atom will tell you. This article will explain how the neutrino works and what it does. What the neutrino really is, has not yet been discovered.
There are three types of neutrinos: the electron neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino. They will be mentioned in examples below.
There are three major classes of radioactivity processes:
. • Radioactive beta decay • Alpha particle decay
• Decay of proton particles
. These radioactivity processes will be described below and include: . • Radioactivity decay of the free neutron. • Radioactivity decay of the proton (if any)
• Pion particle decay
• Muon particle decay
. By these radioactivity processes, nuclear structure is unfolding. H. Becquerel discovered the ionizing effects of radioactivity radiation in 1899, and Rutherford showed that alpha particles were emitted as well as beta electrons.
. Read the whole article Download the ZIP file . .
by
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, ISERVE, Alakapuri, Hyderabad35, AP, India
QASpun division, LANCO Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti517641, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
.
Abstract
Based on the big bang concepts in the expanding universe, ‘rate of decrease in CMBR temperature’ is a measure of the cosmic ‘rate of expansion’. Modern standard cosmology is based on two contradictory statements. They are – present CMBR temperature is isotropic and the present universe is accelerating. In particle physics also, till today laboratory evidence for the existence of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ is very poor. Recent observations and thoughts supports the existence of the ‘cosmic axis of evil’. In this connection an attempt is made to study the universe with a closed and growing model of cosmology. If the primordial universe is a natural setting for the creation of black holes and other nonperturbative gravitational entities, it is also possible to assume that throughout its journey, the whole universe is a primordial (growing and rotating) cosmic black hole. Instead of the Planck scale, initial conditions can be represented with the Coulomb or Stoney scale. Obtained value of the present Hubble constant is close to 71 Km/sec/Mpc.
.
.
.
by
Tadej Bajda a.k.a.Tamal Krishna
das Krsko, Slovenia
.
.
Abstract
Description of a ﬁctional device, cylindrical in shape, for starting a low energy nuclear reaction. Using an environment of hydrogen and nickel charecteristics, similiar to one in an ECat. Imagining hydrogen molecul as a spring resonant system and simply using frequency and power of electricity as a catalyst.
.
.
by
Wladimir Guglinski
retired, author of the Quantum Ring Theory
.
.
Abstract
Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser of the Helmhotz Center for Heavy Ion Research at the University in Mainz says on the 2009 experiment which had detected a neutron halo in 4Be11 with distance 7fm from the cluster:
“By studing neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics”[ 2 ]
In the case of 4Be11, the halo neutron and the nuclear core are separated by the distance of 7fm, and so such isotope represents the experimental proof that the cohesion of nucleons within the light isotopes cannot be promoted by the strong nuclear force.
Such experimental discovery published in 2009 had been predicted years ago, because according to the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, the cohesion of the nucleons within the light nuclei is not caused by the strong nuclear force.
Here in this paper the new nuclear model is submitted to a scrutinity so that to verify whether from its structure it’s possible to explain the stability of the light nuclei and to reproduce the nuclear properties as nuclear spins, electric quadrupole moments, and magnetic moments. Nuclear magnetic moments are calculated from two different and independent methods. In the second, named “method of equilibrium between nucleons”, it’s presented the Lagrangian for nuclei with Z < 8. The results obtained from them agree each other, and are corroborated by nuclear spins and electric quadrupole moments suplied by nuclear tables.
In this Part One are presented calculations on magnetic moments for the isotopes of lithium, beryllium, and boron. In the next paper Part Two will be exhibited calculations for carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. In the paper Part Three the author will exhibit calculations for electric quadrupole moments.
.
.
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, ISERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
With reference to the current physics concepts, implementing the gravitational constant in atomic and nuclear physics and studying its consequences is beyond the scope. 10 dimensional String theory is also not in a position to couple the nuclear scale and planck scale. Role of dark energy or dark matter is very insignificant in understanding the basic concepts of unification of fundamental interactions. Considering the atomic and nuclear physical constants till today cosmic acceleration is not yet verified.
. Project summary Within the expanding cosmic Hubble volume, Hubble length can be considered as the gravitational or electromagnetic interaction range. Product of ‘Hubble volume’ and ‘cosmic critical density’ can be called as the “Hubble mass”. The three proposed assumptions are: 1) within the Hubble volume, each and every point in free space is influenced by the Hubble mass, 2) ‘molar electron mass’ can be considered as the rest mass of a new heavy charged elementary particle and 3) atomic gravitational constant is Avogadro number times the classical gravitational constant. This is a new approach and may be given a chance in understanding the four fundamental cosmological interactions. Approach may be different but involvement and encouragement may bring this subject into main stream.
.
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, ISERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
Introduction
On 21 December 2011 a new meson of rest energy 10.530±0.005 GeV was detected in CERN – LHC and the ATLAS detector.
This new meson, known as χb (3p), consists of two parts – an elementary particle known as a `beauty’ quark and its opposite antiquark, which are bound together by a `strongforce’[1].
Its existence was predicted in our published paper [2]: page278, table16, last row, last column.
Before going further, authors request the interested readers to please go through the two published papers [2] and [3].
This paper is a combined and unified version of the published papers [2,3] and proceedings of the DAE symposium on nuclear physics 2011, India [4,5].
Please note that in our previous paper [2] it was suggested that: W boson is the super symmetric boson of the top quark fermion and the charged Higgs boson pair generates the neutralized Z boson.
It was also suggested that [3,5] Higgs charged boson and W boson couples together to form a neutral boson of rest energy 126 GeV.
Its existence was detected and is under open discussion [6,7].
Another interesting idea is: W boson pair generates a neutral boson of rest energy 161 GeV. This is our prediction and needs to be verified.
.
.
by
Sergey P.Efimov
Seniorlecturer, Department of mathematics,
Bauman Moscow State Technical University. Moscow. Russia
Email: serg.efimo2012@yandex.ru
.
.
Short Content
Modern ideas presume that the nucleon has a complex structure. Accordingly, one should not expect simple and exact formulas for the above quantities in future theory. Still, if we suppose that future theory possesses hidden symmetry then there possibly exist simple formulas for the magnetic moments, since in quantum theory, symmetries normally generate comparatively simple formulas involving integer numbers. The hypothesis can be verified by a simple, but not at all obvious, method of numerical analysis of the experimental data.
Based on it, we find simple phenomenological formulas for the magnetic moments of the proton and neutron with 10 valid digits. We also obtain a compact formula for the relation of the electron’s anomalous moment to the summary magnetic moment of the nucleon with 11 valid digits, and propose dependencies of the neutron and proton masses in electron mass units as functions with argument π.
.
.
.
by
Sankar Hajra
Calcutta Philosophical Forum, Salt Lake,
AC 54, Sector1, Calcutta – 700 064, INDIA
Email: sankarhajra@yahoo.com
.
.
To know whether a fuel isp roper fuel or not is to determine whether the fuel gives off greater amount of energy when it is used than the energy involved in making the fuel from raw natural materials.
A huge amount of energy is obtained when Hydrogen or thermite (a mixture of powdered Aluminium and oxide of iron) is burned.
But energy obtained from combustion of those fuels is not greater than the energy spent to make them from natural resources.
Therefore, Hydrogen and thermite cannot be treated as proper fuels.
Electricity could be readily generated from combustion of those fuels, but, electricity made from those fuels must be more expensive than electricity made from coal or petroleum.
According to Einstein’s E=mcˆ2 formula, 1Kg of any material (preferably Uranium) will give 9×10ˆ16 joules, or 2×10ˆ16 calories, of heat energy through complete nuclear reaction.
[E = mcˆ2 = 1 x (3 x 10ˆ8)ˆ2 joules = 20 x 10ˆ12 kilocals = 20 trillion kilocals]
If that would be true, then powerful states around the world would not compete for oil in the deserts of Arabia.
If one ton of Uranium of someton ‘Little Boy’ bomb could take part in the socalled nuclear reaction, then some million of square miles of the world would burn, instead of only 1.7 square miles of Hiroshima.
It not at all possible to give supply of electricity to the people from socalled nuclear fuels at a cost lower than fossilfuel electricity for the reasons stated above.
However, it is possible to give ontological lectures on nuclear fission/fusion or to earn immense money from socalled nuclear projects.
.
.
by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Spun QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti, AP, 517641, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, AP, 530003, India.
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
It can be supposed that elementary particles construction is much more fundamental than the black hole’s construction.
If one wishes to unify electroweak, strong and gravitational interactions it is a must to implement the classical gravitational constant G in the sub atomic physics.
By any reason if one implements the planck scale in elementary particle physics and nuclear physics automatically G comes into subatomic physics.
Then a large arbitrary number has to be considered as a proportionality constant.
After that its physical significance has to be analyzed.
Alternatively its equivalent “strong nuclear gravitational constant GS can also be assumed.
Some attempts have been done in physics history [1–5].
Whether it may be real or an equivalent if it is existing as a “single constant” its physical significance can be understood.
“Nuclear size” can be fitted with “nuclear Schwarzschild radius”.
“Nucleus” can be considered as “strong nuclear black hole”.
This idea requires a basic nuclear fermion! Nuclear binding energy constants can be generated directly.
Protonneutron stability can be studied.
Origin of “strong coupling constant” and “Fermi’s weak coupling constant” can be understood.
Charged lepton masses can be fitted.
Authors feel that these applications can be considered favorable for the proposed assumptions and further analysis can be carried out positively for understanding and developing this proposed “nuclear planck scale”.
.
.
by
Sankar Hajra
Indian Physical Society, Calcutta, India
Email: sankarhajra@yahoo.com
.
.
Introduction
Important observations on the behavior of light waves began to be performed from the time of Roemer (1670) and important experiments on electricity and magnetism began to be conducted from the time of Coulomb (1783). Maxwell (1865) tried to unify both streams of knowledge and dared to realize what light was. There were numerous experiments to demonstrate that Maxwell’s theory was correct, though some might argue that the theory was inadequate.
In the Maxwell’s theory, if c is considered to be the speed of light in free space, Maxwell’s equations are then valid in free space where the earth is obviously moving with an appreciable velocity. Therefore, the Maxwell’s equations should be affected on the surface of the moving ear th. But curiously, all electromagnetic phenomena as observed on the surface of the moving earth are independent of the movement of this planet. To dissolve this problem, Einstein (1905) assumes that Maxwell’s equations are invariant to all observers in steady motion which acts as the foundation of Special Relativity. In the second place, the relativistic mass formula is routinely confirmed in particle accelerators. Therefore, Special Relativity is held to be more acceptable than Classical Electrodynamics. In the second decade of the past century, Einstein extended his special relativity to General relativity, a spacetime curvature physics wherein he explained many puzzling gravitational phenomena with the application of his spacetime curvature proposition.
From the days of inception of the theory of relativity (1905), numerous physicists like Paul Ehrenfest (1909), Ludwig Silberstein (1920), Philipp Lenard (1920), Herbert Dingle (1950), F. R. Tangherlini (1968), T. G. Barnes et al. (1976), R. Tian & Z. Li (1990) and many others have doubted (fully or partially) over the foundation of the theory of relativity and many of them have proposed alternative approaches.
In the period between the last decade of the last century and the first decade of the present century (19912010), C. A. Zapffe, Paul Marmet, A. G. Kelly, N. Hamdan, R. Honig and many others have made important contributions in this direction.
In the first part of this paper, we have shown that the mass of a point charge as per Classical Electrodynamics is the same as that of Special Relativity and the foundation of both the deductions lies in Classical Electrodynamics of Heaviside (1988). Therefore, mass formula confirmed by the particle accelerators is fully consistent with Classical Electrodynamics too.
In the second part, we have shown that the consideration of the effects of gravitational field of the earth on electromagnetic entities easily explains classically those puzzling gravitational phenomena (explained by Einstein) as well as why all electromagnetic phenomena as observed on earth’s surface are independent of the movement of the earth; and this elucidates that both the invariant proposition and the spacetime curvature proposition of Einstein are unnecessary.
Our goal is to show here the efficacy of the classical physics to interpret relativistic phenomena rationally and easily. In this study we have only used Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations, Newton’s equations of motions and his theory of gravitation. We have used no theory of our own.
.
.


Copyright © 2014 Journal of Nuclear Physics  All Rights Reserved 