BENEFITS OF BECOMING A **GS JOURNAL MEMBER**
LEARN MORE

**Author:**

Abdullahi, Musa Daji

**Category:**

Research Papers

**Sub-Category:**

Mechanics / Electrodynamics

**Language:**

English

**Date Published:**

September 25, 2017

**Downloads:**

234

**Keywords:**

Electric charge, electric field, energy, magnetic field, mass, potential, radius, relativity, speed.

**Abstract:**

The equation H = (εvEo)sinθ gives the magnitude of magnetic field due a charged particle and its electrostatic field Eo moving at speed v in space of permittivity ε, where θ is the angle between the direction of speed v and direction of field Eo. Due to motion of the particle, a dynamic electric field of magnitude (v/c)(Eo)cosθ, is created to make the total field = Eo{1 + (v/c)cosθ}. The kinetic energy of a particle, moving with constant mass m, is K = ½ mv^2. Equating K with the sum of energies of magnetic field H and dynamic electric field, gives a mass-energy equivalence law as E = ½ mc^2, where E is the energy of electrostatic field Eo, in contrast to relativistic equation E = mc^2. A charged particle is assumed to be a spherical shell of radius a and surface charge σ.

Sir,

in your paper: http://indjst.org, oct 2010b, you have not mentioned about antimatter (antiparticle)!-

Nanda Ballabh Pant

in your paper: http://indjst.org, oct 2010b, you have not mentioned about antimatter (antiparticle)!-

Nanda Ballabh Pant

1 Replies

My perspective is that antimatter does not exist in reality.

The formula E=mc^2 has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless in the published paper "Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe" which is available at the journal site at http://indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2885. For further details refer https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/adopted-paradigm-physics-incorrect-shafiq-khan?trk=prof-post.

2 Replies

Sir,

I joined late to you. A latest proof to disprove the Lorentz factor for length contraction & mass variation with velocity is that if, these are correct then an accelerated proton has been blown up before Higgs boson production. Therefore, whether Lorentz length contraction etc. are correct or HIggs boson production is correct? Both events mutually are contradictory! For details visit:www,gsjournal.net.Research paper Quantum -theory/Particle- physics/4858, May 13, 2013.

-Nanda Ballabh Pant

I joined late to you. A latest proof to disprove the Lorentz factor for length contraction & mass variation with velocity is that if, these are correct then an accelerated proton has been blown up before Higgs boson production. Therefore, whether Lorentz length contraction etc. are correct or HIggs boson production is correct? Both events mutually are contradictory! For details visit:www,gsjournal.net.Research paper Quantum -theory/Particle- physics/4858, May 13, 2013.

-Nanda Ballabh Pant

I joined late to you. A latest proof to disprove the Lorentz factor for length contraction & mass variation with velocity is that if, these are correct then an accelerated proton has been blown up before Higgs boson production. Therefore, whether Lorentz length contraction etc. are correct or HIggs boson production is correct? Both events mutually are contradictory! For details visit:www,gsjournal.net.Research paper Quantum -theory/Particle- physics/4858, May 13, 2013.

-Nanda Ballabh Pant

Sir,

in conclusion 5.4 you have mentioned the total energy of charged particle moving at the speed v with constant mass m is:

1/2m(c^2 + v^2). And then what it will be if, charged particle would move at speed c or then what charged particle would become?

in conclusion 5.4 you have mentioned the total energy of charged particle moving at the speed v with constant mass m is:

1/2m(c^2 + v^2). And then what it will be if, charged particle would move at speed c or then what charged particle would become?

**3** total records on 1 pages