Abstracts Details

The paper proposes an explanation to the problem of exceeding the speed of light, discussed in a paper by

Hill and Cox, who have made an extensive calculation of how the Lorentz transformation might be applicable to

velocities larger than the speed of light, provided it would be possible. The solution focuses on the fact that when

a moving body, due to the Lorentz transformation, becomes increasingly smaller, the Uncertainiy Principle may

be applicable, causing thus velocities larger than speed of light to appear.

Not to be written here due to the copyright laws. Please vistit the website

http://www.academicpub.org/jbap/paperInfo.aspx?PaperID=17023

Not to be written here due to the copyright laws. Please visti the website

http://www.academicpub.org/jbap/paperInfo.aspx?PaperID=16667

Not to be written here due to the copyright laws. Please visit the website

http://www.intechopen.com/books/advanced-electromagnetic-waves/the-electromagnetic-force-between-two-parallel-current-conductors-explained-using-coulomb-s-law

Not to be written here due to the copyright laws. Please use the website

http://www.ijmo.org/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=45&id=449

Not to be written here due to the copyright laws. Please visit the website

http://www.academicpub.org/jbap/paperInfo.aspx?PaperID=15353

In this paper it is shown that the energy due to electromagnetic radiation, which has thus far been as-cribed the Poynting vector, based on Maxwell’s Equations, may instead be derived using Coulomb’s law as the basis. Since the common opinion among scientists has been that Maxwell’s systematic description of electromagnetism is consistent with classical electricity described by Coulomb´s Law, a need has been felt to closer explore the differences. It has al-ready been published a number of papers on this subject, but the theoretical basis for a new approach will now be more rigorously defined. The fallacies of the commonly recognized Maxwell electromagnetism appear in five cases, which have already been explored rigorously in other papers.

Describing the event during which a light quanta is released from an atom, thereafter hitting a target at-om, using the most simplistic model, with a single electron orbiting around a positive nucleus, it may be suitable to model the orbiting electron as an electric current. This can be stated also about the target atom. Hence, there are two currents being involved, just as in the case of electric induction.

During stable circumstances, the electron does not radiate, since the circular movement is perpendicular to the radial electric force from the positive nucleus, an argument that is supported by Compton, but denied by Bohr.

The de-excitation of an orbit electron can be de-scribed, applying Coulombs’ law on the process when it interacts with an orbit electron of another atom. An appropriate mathematical model based on induction is proposed, a model that fits with the ambiguous ‘wave-particle paradox’.

Embedded in this model is a new understanding the photon, which has already been explained in earlier papers. The so-called wave-particle paradox is only expressing two mathematical properties of the orbiting motion during the process of electron de-excitation.This paper challenges dissidents to escape the mainstream cage of theories imposed by fiat and adopt a science epistemology based on consistent logic and the scientific method of empirical proof by falsifiability. The Fizeau and Sagnac results will be revisited and analyzed afresh to reach two conclusions that shake the foundations of belief in cosmic architecture and composition. The Absolute Lab frame and Flexible Aether model will be shown to be consistent and supported by all experiments examined to date. This support includes tests that extend Sagnac to linear motion and mechanics, the key results of Michelson & Morley/Gale, and classic aether tests. Establishment claims that support the Earth’s rotation, revolution and translation will be subjected to logic and the scientific method. Consequences of the ALFA paradigm will be outlined.

In this paper it is shown that the energy due to electromagnetic radiation, which has thus far been ascribed the Poynting vector, based on Maxwell’s Equations, may instead be derived using Coulomb’s law as the basis. Since the common opinion among scientists has been that Maxwell’s systematic description of electromagnetism is consistent with classical electricity described by Coulomb´s Law, a need has been felt to closer explore the differences. It has already been published a number of papers on this subject by this author, but the theoretical basis for a new approach will now be more rigorously defined.

The fallacies of the commonly recognized Maxwell electromagnetism appear in five cases, which have been explored rigorously in other papers by this author:

-Ampère’s bridge: Coulomb’ law explains the Ampère’s bridge experiment, the Lorentz’ force does not.

-Coulomb’ law and the Continuity Equation of Electricity explain electromagnetic induction, whereas the ‘Induction Law’ does not

-The Liénard-Wiechert potentials have been fallaciously derived; hence, a cornerstone of the today’s electromagnetic theory has been removed

-The attractive electromagnetic force between two parallel electric currents can be derived using Coulomb’s law, provided a relativistic interpretation is being performed; hence, the Lorentz force is not needed.

-Ampère’s law is not consistent with the Lorentz force; hence, there is no harmony between the ’classics’ of electromagnetism.

The success in refuting the established theories, simultaneously replacing them with the new one according to the interpretation of this author, constitutes the justification for questioning also the rest of electromagnetism, and in the case of electromagnetic radiation this is being done in the following:

Describing the event during which a light quanta is released from an atom, thereafter hitting a target atom, using the most simplistic model, with a single electron orbiting around a positive nucleus, it may be suitable to model the orbiting electron as an electric current. This can be stated also about the target atom. Hence, there are two currents being involved, just as in the case of electric induction.

During stable circumstances, the electron does not radiate, since the circular movement is perpendicular to the radial electric force from the positive nucleus, an argument that is supported by Compton, but denied by Bohr.

When a de-excitation of an orbit electron occurs, it implies that the current must have a nonzero time differential. This varying current will in turn induce a current at another atom, the target. The time that this requires is very short. An appropriate mathematical model is proposed, a model that fits with the ambiguous ‘wave-particle paradox’.

The basis for the new theory is the discovery that Coulomb’s law alone is able to account for the electromagnetic force between electric currents, provided that the differences in propagation delay between the different parts of the conductors are accurately being taken into account, a phenomenon that is often denoted retardation.

The new interpretation of electromagnetic induction enables to accurately estimating the electric effect that the de-excitation of an outer shell atomic electron gives rise to at a target atom, and, accordingly the electric energy may be derived.

Embedded in this model is also a new understanding of what a photon really is, which has already been explained in earlier papers. The so-called wave-particle paradox only expresses two mathematical properties of the orbiting motion during the process of electron de-excitation.

In this paper it is shown that the energy due to electromagnetic radiation, which has thus far been ascribed the Poynting vector, based on Maxwell's Equations, may instead be derived using Coulomb's law as the basis. Since the common opinion among scientists has been that Maxwell's systematic description of electromagnetism is consistent with classical electricity described by Coulomb's Law, a need has been felt to closer explore the differences. It has already been published a number of papers on this subject by this author, but the theoretical basis for a new approach will now be more rigorously defined.

The fallacies of the commonly recognized Maxwell electromagnetism appear in five cases, which have been explored rigorously in other papers by this author:

- Amp?re's bridge: Coulomb' law explains the Amp?re's bridge experiment, the Lorentz' force does not.
- Coulomb' law and the Continuity Equation of Electricity explain electromagnetic induction, whereas the ?Induction Law' does not.
- The Li?nard-Wiechert potentials have been fallaciously derived; hence, a cornerstone of the today's electromagnetic theory has been removed
- The attractive electromagnetic force between two parallel electric currents can be derived using Coulomb's law, provided a relativistic interpretation is being performed; hence, the Lorentz force is not needed.
- Amp?re's law is not consistent with the Lorentz force; hence, there is no harmony between the 'classics' of electromagnetism.

The success in refuting the established theories, simultaneously replacing them with the new one according to the interpretation of this author, constitutes the justification for questioning also the rest of electromagnetism, and in the case of electromagnetic radiation this is being done in the following:

Describing the event during which a light quanta is released from an atom, thereafter hitting a target atom, using the most simplistic model, with a single electron orbiting around a positive nucleus, it may be suitable to model the orbiting electron as an electric current. This can be stated also about the target atom. Hence, there are two currents being involved, just as in the case of electric induction.

During stable circumstances, the electron does not radiate, since the circular movement is perpendicular to the radial electric force from the positive nucleus, an argument that is supported by Compton, but denied by Bohr.

When a de-excitation of an orbit electron occurs, it implies that the current must have a nonzero time differential. This varying current will in turn induce a current at another atom, the target. The time that this requires is very short. An appropriate mathematical model is proposed, a model that fits with the ambiguous ?wave-particle paradox'.

The basis for the new theory is the discovery that Coulomb's law alone is able to account for the electromagnetic force between electric currents, provided that the differences in propagation delay between the different parts of the conductors are accurately being taken into account, a phenomenon that is often denoted retardation.

The new interpretation of electromagnetic induction enables to accurately estimating the electric effect that the de-excitation of an outer shell atomic electron gives rise to at a target atom, and, accordingly the electric energy may be derived.

Embedded in this model is also a new understanding of what a photon really is, which has already been explained in earlier papers. The so-called wave-particle paradox only expresses two mathematical properties of the orbiting motion during the process of electron de-excitation.

International Journal of Modeling and Optimization

Proceedings ICPAM 2013

It has been claimed that Grassmann was the first one to derive the electromagnetic relation that later was to be known as the so-called Lorentz Force, a force that is derived through the mediation of Bi?t-Savart's law. This law is claimed to be the equivalent of Grassmann's law.

It is also often claimed that the Lorentz force law is consistent with Amp?re's force law. An obstacle to achieving agreement on this point has been the fact that the two laws have different shape as well as properties. While the Amp?re force law obeys Newton's third law, so does not the Grassmann law. The problem is avoided by claiming that they are equivalent provided a complete circuit is being studied. A strong argument for this assumption is that all circuits are closed.

It may easily be raised objections against the above claims. At first, if studying the very basic paper by Grassmann that is claimed to contain the derivation of Bi?t-Savart's law, that proof does not appear to be very clear to the reader. If regarding the result of Grassmann as a rudimentary form of Bi?t-Savart's law, that claim may be acceptable. However, if following the proof chain by Grassmann, it is full of elementary mathematical mistakes.

Assis and Bueno have made an effort to prove that both Amp?re's law and Grassmann's law lead to the same result, when a whole closed electric circuit is being regarded, as for example Amp?re?s bridge. However, in this paper the claim by Assis and Bueno is questioned through a rigorous control of the derivations by Assis and Bueno. Regrettably, it appears that they were not correct. A rigorous check of the derivation by Assis and Bueno with respect to one part of the circuit shows that his calculation has not been correctly performed. Hence, the whole claim by him can be discarded. All the steps of the derivation of the force within a selected section of Amp?re's bridge is shown, the selection originally being made by Assis. Another objection against the claims by Assis and Bueno lies on a more principal level. Firstly, no two formulae are equal if not being equal in every point. Secondly, what is usually regarded as a closed circuit contains a mathematical singularity at the point of the voltage source. There, the voltage steps Heaviside-like once at every revolution. To conclude, the claim that Amp?re's law and the Lorentz force are mathematically connected must be definitely rejected.

In this paper it is shown, how the energy due to electromagnetic radiation, thus far derived using the Poynting vector, can be explained using a strictly classical interpretation of Coulomb's Law. The result was achieved using earlier discoveries by this author concerning the electromagnetic force between electric currents and the effect known as electromagnetic induction. In this case the sending current corresponds to the orbiting electron and the receiving current to the current due to electromagnetic induction by a changing electric field in an antenna.

The fact that an orbiting electron does not collapse into the nucleus of its parent atom has thus far been considered a major obstacle to a classical interpretation of the behavior of orbiting electrons. In earlier papers (briefly recalled in this paper) by this author it is has been convincingly shown that a classical particle model is still capable of explaining the eternal, circular movement of an electron around a nucleus. It is possible through the usage of Coulomb?s Law in its original classical formulation. In this connection it has also been shown how the radiation due to the de-excitation of an electron can be explained classically. A mathematical model based on the product of a Dirac function multiplied with a sine wave was used. This made it possible to give the ?wave-particle paradox? a mathematical basis.

Experimental evidence questions the widely recognized concept of the Lorentz force. Specifically it fails to account for (1) the repulsive force within Amp?re?s bridge; (2) Amp?re?s early copper boat experiment, in which the boat moves away from the contact point where an electric current is applied to a basin filled with mercury; (3) the phase shift between the currents of a primary and secondary circuit in a typical transformer. The fundamental source of the fault is the ?Induction Law?, extensively explored elsewhere by this author. This author has even begun to specify alternative conceptual methods to explain the above mentioned phenomena. The effort has succeeded by using Coulomb?s Law, carefully taking into account the effects due firstly to the delay of action, and secondly the effects due to Special Relativity Theory (SRT). The Induction Law can successfully be replaced by using Coulomb?s Law, as other papers by this author describe. In this paper it is rigorously explored how the attractive force between two electric currents can be explained using Coulomb?s Law, thereby applying the effects due to delayed action and SRT. It is also indicated how the hypothetic-deductive practice by Amp?re that lead to the definition of ?Amp?re?s Law? can be given a strict mathematical formulation. The two terms of Amp?re?s Law appear as the derivative of a serial expansion of the expressions attained using Coulomb?s Law, delayed action and SRT altogether. A look into the efforts done by Amp?re has been shown elsewhere to be the outcome of a ?guessing procedure? in the best hypothetical-deductive way, though not offering any idea of why his two terms appear. On the contrary, this paper offers a comprehensive understanding, based on a logical chain from a ?first cause?, until the final result, where every step can be motivated.

In this paper it is described how Ampere's Force Law can be applied to Ampere?s Bridge. A detailed derivation based upon a paper by Wesley has been done. The results are questioned by Jonson, who promotes the usage of Coulomb's Law. He thereby applies the Special Relativity Theory and also takes into account the effects of propagation delay. Both proposals can account for asymptotic properties of Amp?re's law. Finally, the law usually being used in order to predict forces between electric currents, the so-called Lorentz force, fails completely to predict the properties of the force.

In this paper an analysis is being made of a physical electric circuit that might correspond to the famous case of two parallel electric conductors of "infinite length". The case, invented by Amp?re, is not physically possible, of course. All electric currents must namely be guided back to their origin. Therefore one ought to present a physical circuit that contains as a part two conductors infinitesimally close to each other. It appeared that Amp?re‟s bridge would be a suitable choice as a starting model, provided a pair of conductors is inserted inside Practically, it resembles an "eight", with two closed circuits coming close to each other along one branch. This is explained more rigorously in the text. A benefit is that a set of detailed computations on Amp?re‟s bridge by this author may be used as a mathematical basis. A comparison between the results attained by using Amp?re‟s law and Coulombs law respectively is being made. Further, the Lorentz Transformation of the Special Relativity Theory is being applied on the Coulomb result. The result is that also the latter method succeeds in predicting the force between two conductors. This result must further be chosen, since it has been shown elsewhere that the very definition of Amp?re‟s law is devoid of logically consistent argument, whereas Coulomb's law constitutes a 'simplest possible assumption. The usage of Coulomb‟s law is completed with a relativistic analysis, relevant to the properties of the actual circuit, i.e. geometry, velocities.

Though the main interest of the NPA is in challenging orthodoxy in the sciences, it will also feature papers defending such orthodoxy. Our ultimate purpose is to enable participants to articulate their own understanding of the truth. All papers are reviewed by society officers, and sometimes by other members, before presentation in conferences, and they are edited, sometimes very significantly, prior to publication in the Proceedings of the NPA.

NPA is, in turn, the only component of the non-profit corporation: The Natural Philosophy Foundation, Inc., (NPF). The NPF was incorporated in the State of Maryland on July 17, 1995 with the intent to become a long-term science fostering charity organization

This paper is written as a bachelor thesis work at Stockholm University. It is a preliminary manuscript, based upon a more extensive version, shown on this website earlier. *Please note the copyright rules with respect to the figures.*

The paper has now after that a substantial reduction of the content has been undertaken, been accepted as a BS thesis at Stockholm's University (April 27, 2012). The BS thesis paper is available through the author, E-mail address jajo8088@student.su.se

In searching for the reasons behind the rising temperature a broad scope of potential triggering factors is currently investigated by the scientific community. Among those are the effects of extraterrestrial origin. For the time span of the last one-and-a-half century it has been shown that there is a negative correlation between the solar activity and the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere. __However, beginning with the 1990's, the overall temperature rise has increased to the extent that the scientific community has felt the need to search for new models capable of explaining this new phenomenon.__ As a physical explanation, variations in the irradiance from the sun have also been considered, but the effects have appeared to be too small to offer a complete explanation of the observed temperature rise.

Secondary effects of the solar activity have also attained increasing interest. It has among others been assumed that the Galactic cosmic ray flux affects aerosol formation, as decreased solar activity would allow for __a deeper intrusion of cosmic__ rays into the Earth's atmosphere, which in turn is predicted to lead to an increase of the amount of condensation nuclei. Historic records further show that increased cloudiness namely corresponds to a decrease in the solar constant. Higher amount of aerosols leads to higher planetary albedo, and, accordingly to a lower temperature.

The effects of varying cosmic rays have been estimated to be of the same order as the radiative forcing of the increase of carbon dioxide since 1750. Given our knowledge today it is still difficult to judge which the main forcing effects behind the increased temperature are. The results that have been attained tend to corroborate the assumption that Galactic cosmic rays have the effect on temperature, as proposed above. However, there is also a partial ambiguity of the results, which points to the need for further investigation of the field. How each proposed variable affects cloudiness and temperature must further be explored and a serious effort is needed to attain the ?final formula'

In this author?s 1997 paper, a model capable of explaining the electromagnetic forces between electric currents in conductors, using only Coulomb?s law, was proposed, and the results applied to experiments upon Ampere?s bridge. The approach succeeded, due to a rigorous geometric analysis, thereby focusing upon the delay effects thanks to the velocity of light. Simultaneously, the Lorentz force failed completely to explain the behaviour of the force. The special relativity theory (SRT) was not being used and due to the very low velocities involved in the currents in conductors, the need was not felt.

However, since the SRT is widely recognized, a check to what extent that would change the results above seems very urgent to perform. That is also one of the main concerns of this paper. And the result is that the SRT does not affect the results, as far as low charge velocities are involved, as is the case with circuit currents. The effects of propagation delay are of higher order and supersede those of the SRT.

Since efforts have been made by other scientists to explain the results with Ampere?s bridge, thereby using Ampere?s law, this theory will be discussed further here. A model claiming that Ampere?s law is a direct consequence of applying the special relativity theory straightforwardly upon Coulomb?s law will also be analysed, but with negative result. What Ampere derived through deduction with respect to experimental results remains empirical. The Lorentz force is again unable to explain the measurement results, even though the invariance of Maxwell?s equations during Lorentz transformations according to the predominant school supports that claim that Maxwell?s equations also are consistent with reality.

In a paper 1997 a model capable of explaining the electromagnetic forces between electric currents in conductors, using only Coulomb's law, was proposed, and the results applied to experiments upon Ampere's bridge. The approach succeeded, due to a rigorous geometric analysis, thereby focusing upon the delay effects thanks to the velocity of light. Simultaneously, the Lorentz force failed completely to explain the behaviour of the force. The special relativity theory (SRT) was not being used and due to the very low velocities involved in the currents in conductors, the need was not felt.

However, since the SRT is widely recognized, a check to what extent that would change the results above seems very urgent to perform. That is also one of the main concerns of this paper. And the result is that the SRT does not affect the results, as far as low charge velocities are involved, as is the case with circuit currents. The effects of propagation delay are of higher order and supersede those of the SRT.

Since efforts have been made by other scientists to explain the results with Ampere's bridge, thereby using Ampere's law, this theory will be discussed further here. A model claiming that Ampere's law is a direct consequence of applying the special relativity theory straightforwardly upon Coulomb's law will also be analysed, but with negative result. What Ampere derived through deduction with respect to experimental results remains empirical. The Lorentz force is again unable to explain the measurement results, even though the invariance of Maxwell's equations during Lorentz transformations according to the predominant school supports that claim that Maxwell's equations also are consistent with reality.

The discovery by Sagnac in the 1910s that a light beam that is forced to travel in a circular path along an orbiting circular disk needs different time to make a revolution, dependent on the direction, along or against. the direction of revolution. Kelly in a paper discusses efforts being made by different scientists in order to explain the Sagnac effect. Kelly himself succeeds in deriving a model able to explain the numerical results, thereby claiming that the Special relativity theory is not needed; a classical approach suffices.

Another author, Post, analyses the Sagnac experiment thoroughly and uses the relativistic concept of time dilatation when evaluating an expression for the different propagation time along the two directions of the rays. He thereby uses a model developed by Langevin, which results in an expression for the times for the two rays as if they had a relative velocity approximately equal to c-v and c-v with respect to the sender. He claims this to be in line with the SRT He is speaking of a ?recasting' of the Lorentz transformation into polar coordinates.

Einstein on his part basically pretends that the relative velocity of light is c, but is also hesitating, when the question of non-liner movement arises. In one connection for example he claims that the time loss for a clock being moved between two points is independent of which way the journey is being performed; it might even be ?along any polygonal line', he claims, which is problematic when regarding the results of the Sagnac experiment.

However, in this paper it is being shown that the Special Relativity Theory (SRT), too, is able to explain the Sagnac effect, thereby giving just the same results as Kelly. This is a pure matter of coincidence and if velocities increase, the similarity begins to disappear. There are problems in connections with the Kelly theory, as his model implies observers' seeing velocities higher than that of light, whereas the usage of SRT presumes the velocity of light to be the highest one can ever observe. The SRT succeeds through the usage of the concept of time dilatation, extended in a differential sense when applied to a circular orbit.

At the NPA 2006 Tulsa conference, this author proposed a physical explanation for the disputed phenomenon "thought transference". Reference was made to experiments performed in a university laboratory in 1943, according to which texts were successfully transferred to an illiterate person, who was able to recite the texts being read in another room, kept isolated from that of hers. In the present paper reference is made to two articles in a leading daily, which describe industrial applications of thought transference, though not in the startling fashion as that in the preceding paper. In the first case a disabled person was controlling a computer mouse at a distance. In another case a disabled person was controlling his wheelchair using his mere thoughts. This indicates the beginning of a process, optimally leading to the establishment of the physical domain of thought transference.

PLEASE OBSERVE THIS IS ONLY A DRAFT intended to give the NPA members an opportunity to already now begin studying the issues prior to the NPA conference of next year (2010). New updated versions will continuously appear on this site appear. Small corrections must inevitably be made (Today: 25 Sep. 2009)

In this paper it is described how the Ampere Force Law can be applied to Ampere's Bridge. A detailed derivation based upon a paper by Wesley is being done. The results are questioned by Jonson, who promotes a usage of Coulomb's law. However, both proposals can account for forces of the order measured by Pappas and Moyssides in the early 1980s. It is up to the reader ro choose model. Finally, the law usually being used in order to predict forces between electric currents, the so-called Lorentz force, fails completely to predict the properties of the force.

The paper is mainly based upon a 20 years old paper by the author, published in the Chinese Journal of Physics 1997 (VOL. 35, No. 2, April, pp 139-149).

What is new is that the detaliled calculations (even updated) are presented, which is intended to make a check easier for anybody interested. It appeared to med that every step required rather lot of time before being successful.

Successful falsifications of today's electromagnetic theory pave the way for a 'back to the basics' approach through turning back to coulomb's law as a basis for electromagnetism. In this paper a number of apparently disparate discoveries within electromagnetism and related subjects are brought together into a coherent context. The intent is to gain momentum for a new electromagnetic field theory, based upon Coulomb's original force law of 1785. Throughout the paper it is repeatedly given support to the assumption that Coulomb's law is able to give credit to phenomena, which have thus far been explained using either new or completing laws. The first -and simultaneously most crucial - issue is that of the potential functions used in order to derive the electromagnetic fields used today, often called the Lienard-Wiechert potentials. Referring to an earlier paper it is shown that these potentials have regrettably been fallaciously derived. The issue is crucial, since if the potentials are false, the rest of the electromagnetic theory must accordingly be rejected, due to its formal dependence of the former. Reference is also being made to earlier results with Ampere's bridge, refuting the Lorentz force, simultaneously giving credit to Coulomb's law. Also electromagnetic induction can be explained using Coulomb's law instead of the 'Induction law'. The fourth issue is that of 'photons'. Using again Coulomb's law, it is possible to classically explain the "wave-particle paradox". A fifth issue is that of gravity. It is discussed, whether gravity might be able to explain as an electromagnetic effect.

The discovery of the necessity of infinite current densities at idealized DC generator poles needs search for applications, among others cold fusion. A mathematical proof has been made elsewhere predicting the appearance of infinite current densities in the vicinity of idealized DC generator poles with a vanishing linear extension. The discovery was made, as a complete DC circuit was being analyzed mathematically as a part of the analysis of experimental results with Ampere's bridge in the 1980s. The author has proposed that the research upon among others cold fusion would benefit from the discovery, as very high energy densities will be needed in order to achieve fusion, and this will happen in an electric circuit, too, provided the current density is high enough. Since no reactions have been observed thus far with respect to the publication of the discovery, it seems necessary to emphasize this discovery again through a special paper, focusing solely upon the analysis of a DC source. More generally, the discovery will be of great use within all calculations of electromagnetic forces involving a DC generator, or a discharging capacitor, as well.

The fact that an orbiting electron does not collapse into the nucleus of its parent atom has thus far been considered a major obstacle to a classical interpretation of the stable states of orbiting electrons. Quantum mechanics avoids the very problem by discussing the probability of finding it, a method that confessedly has been very fruitful in the exploring the behaviour of elementary particles. Nonetheless, why should necessarily those two approaches be regarded as each others' enemies? In this paper it is shown that the classical mechanistic approach is still capable of explaining the eternal, circular movement of an electron around a nucleus. It is possible if reformulating the laws of action involved, returning to the simple electrostatic model, based upon Coulomb's law (1785, 1771). Further, in this paper it is also discussed, how electromagnetic radiation due to the de-excitation of excited electrons, orbiting around a positive nucleus, can be explained classically, as a sudden peak in the otherwise zero electric field, due to the inwards spiralling movement connected to the de-excitation. The concept of a distinct particle, the 'photon' is thereby rejected.

For almost one year ago the two NPA participants Mr. James Keele and Mr. Jan Olof Jonson, both Master of Science Electric Engineers, performed an open E-mail debate before a part of the NPA members, about the SRT Theory of Electromagnetics for Moving Charges. The debate began, as Mr. Jonson answered to a mailed paper by Mr. Keele in July, 2006. Now it is their common intention to let all the NPA members take part of their debate.

The fact that an orbiting electron does not collapse into the nucleus of its parent atom has thus far been considered a major obstacle to a classical interpretation of the stable states of orbiting electrons. Quantum mechanics avoids the very problem by discussing the probability of finding it, a method that confessedly has been very fruitful in the exploring the behaviour of elementary particles. Nonetheless, why should necessarily those two approaches be regarded as each others' enemies?

In this paper it is shown that the classical mechanistic approach is still capable of explaining the eternal, circular movement of an electron arolmd a nucleus. It is possible if reformulating the laws of action involved, returning to the simple electrostatic model. based upon Coulomb's law (1785, 1771).

Further, in this paper it is also discussed, how electromagnetic radiation due to the dc-excitation of excited electrons, orbiting around a positive nucleus, can be explained classically, as a sudden peak in the otherwise zero electric field, due to the inwards spiralling movement connected to the de-excitation. The concept of a distinct particle, the 'photon' is thereby rejected.

Well aware of the fact that 'thought transference', usually called telepathy, with a slightly ridiculing tone, most widely is regarded as just humbug, nothing else, it's really risky to try to deal with it using strictly physics terms. Well, since I myself recently happened to encounter that very phenomenon, with a 100% evidence, I feel a scientist's need to explain it. Of course one could stick to theories of demons or spirits, but that seems not very fruitful. In ancient times it was believed, too, that demons or gods were personally moving the celestial bodies one was able to observe from Earth. One more fruitful way to explain the possibility of "thought transference" is to realize that all the signals we can perceive with our minds inevitably correspond to TV or radio signals, and such are usually generated by resonance circuits. It is also well known that at least analog resonance circuits also are able to receive and add an external signal to its own, known as feedback or mutual induction. The reason why scientists have thus far been unable of performing practical experiments is probably the huge mixture of signals of different frequencies and amplitudes, created by billions of 'brain cells'. How could one e.g. be able to separate all the existing radio signals, if nor first the selective radio receiver had first been invented? A reference to an experimental study performed by a Lettish scientist in the 1940s is also being done.

A new explanation to the effect of electromagnetic induction is proposed, while simultaneously rejecting the currently accepted 'Induction Law', originally proposed by Neumann, 1845. According to the new theory, a current will be induced by any changing electric field, due to the Continuity Equation of Electricity and the Law of Electric Displacement, two of Maxwell's Equations.

It has been shown elsewhere that a current within a conductor, in spite of an overall charge neutrality, will give rise to a force upon another such current, due to Coulomb's Law, thereby rejecting the claims of the Lorentz Force. Here it is shown that the same Coulomb force can also account for electromagnetic induction. A comparison between the predicted phase shift from the primary to the secondary loop within a transformer according to this theory and according to the Induction Law gives credit to the former, while the latter fails. This result follows as a consequence of the discovery that any electric current through a resistive circuit must be proportional to the time derivative of the applied voltage, not primarily the voltage itself, as usually has been inferred from Ohm's Law. It is shown that it is only a coincidence with the fact that the time derivative of an exponential function is proportional to that same exponential function, which gives this result, usually understood as Ohm's Law.

The exponentially decaying nature of a current through a D.C. circuit is due to the continuous loss of excess charges at the poles, as the current flows, just an analog to what happens, when a charged capacitor is connected to a resistive loading.

The so-called Lienard-Wiechert potentials constitute a fundamental part of basic electromagnetic theory. Through these potentials both the electric and the magnetic fields are accordingly derived, and in following steps Maxwell’s Equations may also be derived. Short-to-say, if succeeding in showing any fundamental fallacy in the derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert potentials, one could claim to have falsified whole Maxwell’s theory, a very important prerequisite if intending to pave the way for a radically new theory. Yet, the author does not intend to create a new theory of his own. Instead, at hand is an attempt to give credit to the far older theory than Maxwell’s, namely basically Coulomb’ s Law of 1785 (or Cavendish 1771).

The author has earlier published a paper where this is done with respect to experiments performed upon Ampere’s Bridge in the early 1980´s. In this paper the focus is on the way retarded potentials are derived.

The author succeeds in showing that Feynman in his derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert Potentials in the famous “Feynman’s Lectures on Physics” counts the same charge twice, hence attaining a wrong expression for the electric potential, provided one is using the very idea of potentials

Gravity is explained as an effect of electrostatics

An orbiting electron does not collapse into the nucleus of its parent atom, as a consequence of the balance of forces working upon it: The attractive force from the positively charged nucleus and the repulsive force due to centripetal acceleration.

If the speed of the electron is assumed to be constant, no net work can be done upon it, it does not lose energi and hence it continues orbiting.

Since all the forces working upon the electron are perpendicular to its motion, no work can be done upon it, in spite of the continous change of the direction of the velocity vector.

A precondition for the result is the non-existence of any so-called magnetic field, i.e. only the Coulomb force has to be taken inte account. Elsewhere the author has succeeded in eliminating the very idea of "magnetic fields", basing the computation of electromagnetic forces solely upon Coulomb's original electrostatic law. (*)

(*) 'The Magnetic Force between Two Currents Explained Using Only Coulomb's Law', Chinese Journal of Physics, VOL. 35, NO.2, April 1997, Chinese Journal of Physics, pp. 139-149.

A new explanation to the magnetic force between two conductors due to their respective currents is proposed. It is based upon the strict usage of Coulomb’s original force law.

It is shown that this purely electrostatic law is capable of explaining also the magnetic force between currents. The reason is the inhomogeneous propagation of the electric field from different parts of continuously distributed moving charges, thereby causing a net difference between the field from the moving electrons and the immobile ions respectively in a conductor. Within the scope of this investigation it was also found that a D.C. voltage source must have inherited a direct current at the poles, opposite to the direction of the current through the circuit.

Using these concepts, experiments upon a set of Ampere’s Bridge, performed by Moyssides and Pappas [J. Appl. Phys. 59, 19 (1986)] can be satisfactorily explained.