This presentation was first placed on the Internet in
August 2007. When a truly rigorous logical analysis is done of the highly respected NIST data for spectral lines, there is every indication that at least one of Newton, Coulomb and/or Planck must have made a huge blunder! One of them has to be quite wrong about some major concepts, on which all of Nuclear Physics has been built! The reasoning is presented here as carefully and as strictly as is possible. Around 300 years ago, Newton determined the Law of Gravitation, which is given by the following (simplified) equation:
This equation gives the Force which applies on any object due to a gravitational attraction of two masses M and m, when they are at a distance apart of r. G is a constant which gives the Force in units called newtons (G is called the Gravitational Constant). μ is commonly used to represent the product of the central mass M and G. Work is done, or Energy consumed, when Force is applied over a distance (by definition). If the Force is of constant amplitude and direction, and if the distance is considered to be a line segment, IN THE SAME DIRECTION, then W = E = F * r. This is the traditional definition of energy.
The quantities F and r are both VECTORS and not simply numbers. That means that each has both an amplitude (size) and a direction. Because of this, the above equation is not simply two numbers multiplied by each other, but what is called a Dot Product. IF they have the exact same direction, then it is simple multiplication. But if they are in DIFFERENT directions, where their direction is different by an angle that we will call θ, then the multiplication requires the sine of that angle, as:


The f quantity represents the force which applies at any instant in any specific location. The fact that f exists everywhere, and for all times, means that we have a Force Field. If we specify that the strength of that Force Field is dependent only on position (for constant masses of both objects), then we have a Conservative Force Field. For either gravitation or electrostatic effects, we have the following coordinates (for the simplified case of being in a single xy plane, where the threedimensional form is similar but more complicated.)
You may have found Newton's Gravitation or Coulomb's electrostatics presented in a much simpler form! The form above is the technically correct form, for ANY type of motion in a gravitational or electrostatic field. IF we assume that the affected object will move in a uniform circular motion, then the square root of (x^{2} + y^{2}) is always the radius of that circular orbit, and this is then easily simplified into the equation:
We can see that for a target which has unity mass or charge, this is simply Newton's Gravitation equation with k = μ, or similarly, it is Coulomb's Law of electrostatics with k being the central charge.
It will later become important to know the relationship of these two forces, so we might as well calculate them here. Let us consider an electron and a proton, the components of a Hydrogen atom, but for this calculation we are going to place them much farther apart, only because the standard equations use centimeters as the basic unit of length. For the Gravitational Force, we have F_{g} = G * M * m / r^{2} (Newton's Law of Gravitation) and for the Electrostatic Force we have F_{e} = Q * q / r^{2} (Coulomb's Law for electrostatics). The r distance in both cases will be chosen as one centimeter. F will be calculated in dynes. We know that G is 6.67 * 10^{8}, the mass of the proton is 1.65 * 10^{24}, and the mass of the electron is 0.91 * 10^{27} (grams). This calculates to the Gravitational attraction being 1.0 * 10^{58} dyne. We know that the charge Q and q are identical in strength but opposite, and that they are each 4.80296 * 10^{10} electrostatic units (esu). This calculates to the Electrostatic attraction being 2.307 * 10^{19 } dyne. We can see that the Electrostatic Force is immensely more strong than the Gravitational, by a factor of around 2.3 * 10^{39}. We will soon use this fact to entirely ignore gravitational effects within the atom.
Above, we noted that the definition of Work or Energy is the (dot) product of the external force and the instantaneous radial distance. For discussion reasons, we will use the simplified form here, and we then have:
We have chosen to use r = infinity as one limit of the Integral. This results in the denominator becoming immensely large and the total quantity therefore disappearing to zero. We are essentially defining a Work Potential at infinity as being zero.
When we solve this simple Integral for both limits, we get the following:
Notice that ALL Work Potentials are therefore negative.
This situation is identically true for both gravitational and
electrostatic energy fields, as both are inversesquare
dependencies.
These two fields are confirmed as being Conservative Fields.
One consequence of this is that there is Conservation of Energy,
meaning that the total of kinetic energy and potential energy
remains constant unless external energy is either provided or
removed from the system. As we chose to define the potential
energy at infinity as zero, we similarly define the kinetic
energy there, for a total of zero total energy. As an object
falls in toward the source of the force field (whether a gravitational
mass or an electric charge) the potential energy becomes negative
(as given by
Public Service Categories 
SelfSufficiency  Many Suggestions Environmental Subjects Scientific Subjects Advanced Physics Social Subjects Religious Subjects Public Services Home Page Main Menu 
If we keep with the simplified view of a circular orbit, then the velocity of motion in the circular orbit is equal to the length of a radian times the angular velocity, or:
We therefore have two quantities which must always total zero, in order to comply with Conservation of Energy:
We can therefore equate the two terms:
We can then crossmultiply to get 2 * k = m * ω^{2}r^{3}.
If we were considering a Gravitational system, like planets orbiting around the Sun, we know from above that k would be
Conservation of Angular Momentum  An Exception or Violation (Sept 2006)
Galaxy Spiral Arms Stability and Dynamics A purely Newtonian gravitational explanation (Nov 1997, Aug 1998)
Twins Paradox of Relativity Is Absolutely Wrong (research 19972004, published Aug 2004)
Perturbation Theory. Gravitational Theory and Resonance (Aug 2001, Dec 2001)
Origin of the Earth. Planetary Gravitational Resonances (Dec 2001)
Rotation of the Sun (Jan 2000)
Origin of the Universe. Cosmogony  Cosmology (more logical than the Big Bang) (devised 1960, internet 1998)
Time Passes Faster Here on Earth than on the Moon (but only a fraction of a second per year!) (Jan 2009)
Globular Clusters. All Globulars Must Regularly Pass Through the cluttered Galaxy Plane, which would be very disruptive to their pristine form. (Nov 1997, Aug 1998)
Existence of Photons. A Hubble Experiment to Confirm the Existence of Individual Photons (experimental proof of quanta) (Feb 2000)
Origin of the Moon  A New Theory (June 2000)
Planetary Rotation of Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth (Jupiter has a lot of gaseous turbulence which should have slowed down its rapid rotation over billions of years) (March 1998)
Cepheid Variable Stars. Velocity Graph Analysis (Feb 2003)
Compton Effect of Astrophysics. A Possible New Compton Effect (Mar 2003)
Olbers Paradox Regarding Neutrinos (Oct 2004)
Kepler and Newton. Calculations (2006)
Pulsars. Pulsars May Be Quite Different than we have Assumed (June 2008)
Sun and Stars  How the Sun Works  Nuclear Fusion in Creating Light and Heat (Aug 2006)
Stars  How They Work  Nuclear Fusion. Lives of Stars and You (Aug 2004)
Sundial Time Correction  Equation of Time. Sundial to ClockTime Correction Factor (Jan 2009)
General Relativity  A Moon Experiment to Confirm It. Confirming General Relativity with a simple experiment. (Jan 2009)
General Relativity and Time Dilation. Does Time Dilation Result? (Jan 2009)
Geysers on Io. Source of Driving Energy (June 1998)
Mass Extinction, a New Explanation. A New Explanation for Apparent Periodicity of Mass Extinctions (May 1998, August 2001)
Precession of Gyroscopes and of the Earth. Gyroscope Precession and Precession of the Earth's Equinoxes (Apr 1998)
Ocean Tides  The Physics and Logic. Mathematical Explanation of Tides (Jan 2002)
Earth's Spinning  Perfect Energy Source (1990, Dec. 2009)
Earth's Magnetic Field  Source and Logic. Complex nature of the magnetic field and its source (March 1996)
Earth Spinning Energy  Perfect Energy Source From the Earth's Spinning (1990, Nov. 2002)
Nuclear or Atomic Physics Related Subjects:
Nuclear Physics  Statistical Analysis of Isotope Masses Nuclear Structure. (research 19962003, published Nov 2003)
Quantum Defect is NOT a Mathematical Defect It Can Be Calculated The Quantum Defect is a Physical Quantity and not a Fudge Factor(July 2007)
Atomic Physics  NIST Atomic Ionization Data Patterns Surprising Patterns in the NIST Data Regarding Atomic Ionization (June 2007)
Nuclear Physics  Logical Inconsistencies (August 2007)
Neutrinos  Where Did they all Come From? (August 2004)
Neutrinos  Olbers Paradox Means Neutrinos from Everywhere (Oct 2004)
Quantum Nuclear Physics. A Possible Alternative (Aug 2001, Dec 2001, Jan 2004)
Quantum Physics  Quantum Dynamics. A Potential Improvement (2006)
Quantum Physics is Compatible with the Standard Model (2002, Sept 2006, Oct 2010)
Quantum Dynamics (March 2008)
Ionization Potential  NIST Data Patterns. Surprising patterns among different elements (March 2003)
Mass Defect Chart. (calculation, formula) (research 19962003, published Nov 2003)
Assorted other Physics Subjects:
Precession of Gyroscopes and of the Earth. Gyroscope Precession and Precession of the Earth's Equinoxes (Apr 1998)
Earth's Magnetic Field  Source and Logic. Complex nature of the magnetic field and its source (March 1996)
Earth Spinning Energy  Perfect Energy Source (1990, Nov. 2002)
Earth Energy Flow Rates due to Precessional Effects (63,000 MegaWatts) (Sept 2006)
Accurate Mass of the Earth. Gravitational Constant  An Important Gravitation Experiment. (Feb 2004)
Tornadoes  The Physics of How They Operate, including How they Form. Solar Energy, an Immense Source of Energy, Far Greater than all Fossil Fuels (Feb 2000, Feb 2006, May 2009)
Radiometric Age Dating  Carbon14 Age Determination. Carbon14, C14 (Dec 1998)
Mass Extinction, an Old Explanation. An Old Explanation for Apparent Periodicity of Mass Extinctions (Aug 2003)
Hurricanes, the Physics and Analysis A Credible Approach to Hurricane Reduction (Feb 2001)
Sundial Time Correction  Equation of Time. Sundial to ClockTime Correction Factor (Jan 2009)
http://mbsoft.com/index.html
http://mbsoft.com/public/othersci.html