Revolutionary breakthrough in modern physics

Written by John O'Sullivan on October 18, 2018. Posted in Current News

We were all taught at school that “nothing goes faster than the speed of light.” The originator of this maxim of modern physics is Albert Einstein. But new findings suggest this was an oversimplification.

We are all familiar with Einstein’s famous formula E = mc². It has withstood the test of time – mostly. But the 20^th century’s greatest scientist may have assumed too much in applying his equation for determining the velocity of an elementary particle.

Award-winning Indian physicist, M.A. Padmanabha Rao, PhD (AIIMS) has now shown that Einstein’s assertion, ‘light goes at maximum speed’ can be demonstrated invalid when considering superluminal velocities.

Dr Rao’s findings are detailed in his paper featured below:

Einstein’s assertion, ‘light goes at maximum speed’ proved wrong as superluminal velocities are real

M.A. Padmanabha Rao, PhD (AIIMS)

Summary

Albert Einstein’s equation E = mc²in his Special Theory of Relativity, 1905 is of no avail in determining velocity of any elementary particle or radiation. Moreover, Einstein’s assertion that nothing goes faster than light, which did not allow scientists to accept superluminal velocities as real for over a century, proved wrong in his article. Purely due to Einstein’s assertion, neutrinos going faster than light from OPERA experiment was not accepted as a discovery by luminaries, despite no substantial evidence for the denial. Immediately in 2011, the author commented in the journal Nature saying neutrinos go faster than light by virtue of high energies and explained by a newly proposed equation E = V². In this article, it is termed Padmanabha Rao’s equation. Based on this equation, the current article provides four definite evidences unfolding that the velocity of an elementary particle such as an electron having mass, a neutrino with negligibly small mass or of an electromagnetic radiation with zero mass depends upon its energy or wavelength. In brief, each wavelength or energy has a specific velocity. What I claim is true, much of the modern physics is to be reviewed.

Introduction

Einstein’s formula cannot determine the velocity

The Newtonian kinetic energy equation k.e = ½ mv²went into oblivion with the emergence of Albert Einstein’s formula E = mc²in his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. However, in determining the velocity of an elementary particle like beta particle, the equation E =mc² became redundant due to replacement of the earlier term, variable velocity v with velocity of light c, Yet, scientists totally relied for over a century on the Einstein’s famous formula E = mc²for a solution, as it gained fame more and more with time, not realizing that the formula has no scope to determine the velocity of a moving elementary particle or electromagnetic radiation.

The modern physics faced a major setback due to Einstein’s assertion that nothing goes faster than light. The assertion was made at the time even the atomic structure was not fully understood. Einstein’s assertion worked as an unwritten law in the minds of the scientists. The effect was very harming to all those correct scientific observations made, for example on arrival of solar radiations, on arrival of neutrinos in 2011, and on arrival of optical radiations from collision of neutron stars, when scientists failed to interpret their own results.

Explained Rhessi’s results on early arrival of solar X-rays over EUV

Rhessi reported, “solar flare on April 21, 2002 have shown strong, localized bursts of high energy X-rays coming from the base of the flaring region well before the initial brightening in the EUV” (1). The experimental findings are absolutely true on the simple premise that higher energy is required for anything to go fast and reach more distance as witnessed in the case of sports. Accordingly, higher energy solar X-rays at keV level are expected to go faster than the low energy EUV (extreme ultraviolet light) just at eV level. Unfortunately, in such circumstances some scientists argue that all electromagnetic radiations including X-rays and EUV travel at the same speed C, without any theoretical support. Owing to lack of any theoretical support, Rhessi scientists were unable to infer that solar X-rays go faster than EUV and arrive early. In 2008, I have attributed the early arrival of high energy solar X-rays over EUV to X-rays traveling faster than EUV. Due to constraints of space in proceedings HEN2008, I could not provide the necessary theoretical support (2).

In 2011, OPERA scientists claimed neutrinos went faster than light.

Luminaries misjudged the discovery due to Einstein’s assertion

A classic example to the serious issue in modern physics whether or not the superluminal velocities are real, is the OPERA experiment in 2011. OPERA scientists have reported neutrinos arriving 60 nanoseconds quicker than light when they pumped neutrinos from CERN near Geneva to Gran Sasso in Italy (3). However, the claim was not accepted as a path breaking discovery by physics luminaries, purely because of immense trust on Einstein’s assertion that nothing goes faster than light (4). It was simply a misjudgment of the valuable findings on face value. Truly speaking, Einstein himself had no theoretical basis to deny superluminal velocities. Einstein’s assertion, a mere assumption proved to be wrong in the current paper.

Immediately in 2011, I have made a comment in the journal Nature justifying neutrinos truly go faster than light explaining by my formula E = V²(3). In this article, it is termed as Padmanabha Rao’s equation. I have shown later in this article that any elementary particle or radiation with energy higher than that of violet light go at superluminal velocity. Therefore, very high energy neutrinos at GeV level should go at superluminal velocities. In any case, OPERA scientists were the first to provide an experimental evidence on faster than light is real and with renewed efforts re-claimed their discovery again in 2018 (5). Two steps are needed to recognize their findings. Luminaries should be ready to ignore Einstein’s assertion since neutrinos go faster than light as per the Padmanabha Rao’s equation and experimentally verify whether neutrinos arrive earlier than light. Experiment can be improved, if necessary to confirm the findings.

Padmanabha Rao’s Equation E = V²

The Newtonian equation K.e = ½ mv² is of no avail due to the term m in the formula, in determining the velocity of neutrinos and electromagnetic radiation like X-rays, because mass is negligibly small for neutrinos, and mass m is zero for photons. Similarly, the term mass m in the Einstein’s formula E = mc² gives no scope to determine the velocity of neutrinos or electromagnetic radiation like X-rays for the same reasons said above. On one hand, the equation was of no help to know whether neutrinos go faster than light or X-rays go faster than EUV. On the other hand Einstein’s assertion mainly misled the scientists from accepting the truth on neutrinos going at faster than light.

In 2011, I have explained neutrinos truly go at superluminal velocities, according to my formula E = V² in response to the OPERA experimental reported results on neutrinos going at superluminal velocities in the journal, Nature (3).Currently, this is the only formula available in literature that explains that velocity of an elementary particle or electromagnetic radiation depends upon its energy or wavelength. The above formula, higher the energy E faster the velocity V resulted on modifying Einstein’s formula by introducing variable velocity V in place of finite velocity of light C. And removed mass m from the formula.

Literature evidently shows higher energies reach more distance

The Newtonian kinetic energy equation k.e = ½ mv²went into oblivion with the emergence of Albert Einstein’s formula E = mc²in 1905. However, in determining the velocity of an elementary particle like beta particle, the equation E =mc² became redundant due to replacement of the earlier term, variable velocity v with velocity of light c, Comparatively, the Newtonian equation supports the experimental data that high energy beta reaches more distance due to high velocity. For example, it is well documented that beta from tritium with energy of 18.6 keV (E_max) reach nearly 6.0 mm of air, whereas the 1.7 MeV (E_max) beta from ³²P goes up to 20 ft in air.

1.7 MeV = ½ mv²_p(v_prepresents velocity of beta from ³²P)(i)

18.6 keV = ½ mv²_T (v²_T represents velocity of beta from tritium) (ii)

Mass m of beta is the same in both instances. On division of equation (i) by (ii), ½ m cancels and we get 1700/ 18.6 = v²_p^/v²_T.The Newtonian k.e equation explains that the hard beta from ³²P goes with the velocity 9.56 times faster than that of the beta from tritium. That is why the hard beta could reach more distance. It is to note that since beta being a charged particle follows a haphazard path, so the distance will not be covered exactly in linear relation with energy.

Discovery of Bharat Radiation in 2010

I briefly mention here what is Bharat Radiation. My nine years of research from 1988 to 1997 at the Defence Laboratory in Jodhpur in India led me to experimentally discover UV dominant optical emission from radioisotopes and XRF sources regardless of the fact whether they are present in the form of salts or salts (6 -14). In order to explain the unprecedented light emission, I have predicted that gamma rays, beta particles, and X-rays first generate some intermediate energies higher than that of UV within the same excited atom of a radioisotope or XRF source by an unprecedented atomic phenomenon, now known as Padmanabha Rao Effect. The Bharat Radiation, in turn causes the newly detected UV dominant optical emission from the same excited atom of a radioisotope or XRF source by valence excitation. In clear terms, X-rays cause two more generations of electromagnetic radiations: (i) Bharat Radiation, and (2) light emission dominant in UV. Till 2013, Bharat Radiation remained as predicted radiation from radioisotopes and XRF sources. A search began for definite evidence for the predicated Bharat Radiation.

In 2013, I have reported the discovery of Bharat Radiation wavelengths in the solar spectra measured by Woods et al from University of Colorado (fig.1), I have first identified the three mountain like wavelength regions as solar X-rays up to 12.87 nm, Bharat radiation from 12.87 to 31 nm, and Extreme UV (EUV) from 31 nm (15). Notably, the measured spectrum showed that these three wavelength regions fall successively with the fall of energy.

Fig.1 (above) Solar spectrum measured by Woods et al. reproduced here claimed that the tall peaks represent Fe lines, based on outdated spectral data on Fe lines (15). On comparison with latest Fe spectrum from NIST, USA, I have found that the Fe lines shown in Fig.1 did not agree with the solar lines.

I have first identified the three mount like wavelength regions as solar X-rays up to 12.87 nm, Bharat Radiation from 12.87 to 31 nm, and EUV above 31 nm. That is how the definite evidence on existence of Bharat Radiation was found from solar spectrum with wavelengths 12.87 to 31 nm as shown in Fig.1. The fact radioisotopes emit Bharat Radiation (14) provided the key that Sun’s core surface must have radioisotopes. That led me to believe that ²³⁵uranium fission takes place on Sun’s core surface.

In 2013, I have published another research paper titled, discovery of Self – Sustained ²³⁵U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect (16), Essentially, ²³⁵uranium fission taking place on Sun’s core surface gives the key information that all solar emissions start simultaneously from solar flare. This aspect is important in dealing with the arrival of different solar radiations such as X-rays and EUV. Some scientists hold the view that X-rays arrived early might have started early. That is not true, because both X-rays and EUV start simultaneously from fission fragments present in solar flare, but X-rays arrive early.

List of common emissions from X-ray sources and Sun

My experimental study with XRF sources revealed X-rays cause Bharat Radiation, which in turn causes UV, light emission and near infrared radiation (14). The above Solar spectrum in fig. 1 disclosed EUV emission following Bharat Radiation. In nutshell, X-rays cause Bharat Radiation, which in turn causes EUV, UV, visible light, and near infrared radiation.

Solar spectra evidently show lower wavelengths show early arrival

The first evidence supporting my formula

Some other solar spectra (Fig.3, Ref 17) measured by Woods et al in 2011 showed time differences on the arrival of various emissions, but the investigators faced difficulty in understanding the reason for early arrival of some radiations. The solar spectra measured by Woods et al in 2011 showed early arrival of 70A GOES X-rays than 133A Bharat Radiation. Even among X-rays 70A GOES X-ray band arrived earlier than 94A X-ray band. This is a noteworthy observation because even among the X-ray wavelengths, lower wavelengths (higher energies) showed early arrival.

Even among the X-ray wavelengths, early arrival of 70A wavelengths over 94A wavelengths, indicate lower wavelengths (higher energy) travel faster, hence arrived earlier than 94A. The difference in wavelengths between 70A and 94A is just 14A, but conveys that each wavelength or energy has a specific wavelength. Generally, there has been a misunderstanding that X-rays might have been started much earlier than the other radiations. However, all these solar emissions start simultaneously from fission products in solar flare (16). Therefore, early arrival of a radiation is an indicator for fast travel.

Evidence on Superluminal velocities of X-rays and Bharat Radiation

The measurements showed early arrival of X-rays (70A) over Bharat radiation (133A) (Ref. 17). According to Padmanabha Rao’s equation E= V², lower wavelengths (higher energies) go with faster velocity and arrive early. Therefore, X-rays (70A) with wavelengths lower than that of Bharat radiation (133A) arrived early. In other words, early arrival of lower wavelengths supports the above equation. Likewise, Bharat Radiation (133A) arrived earlier than EUV (335A) owing lower wavelength than EUV, though both are at eV level. In nutshell, X-rays go faster than Bharat radiation, which in turn go faster than EUV. Here, EUV emission is considered to have travelled at velocity of light C for sake of convenience due to limited data available. That is how the Padmanabha Rao’s equation E= V²helped in unfolding the true superluminal velocities of X-rays and Bharat Radiation, against the wide belief gamma rays, X-rays and light travel at the same speed.

Second experimental evidence

Already discussed on solar X-rays arriving earlier than Bharat radiation since lower wavelengths travel with faster velocity and arrive early (17). Fig.2 shows further evidence to the fact solar X-rays at lower wavelengths travel with faster velocity and reach more distance.

Fig. 2 Solar spectra measured by Hinteregger et al. at 103, 120, 134, 147, 170 and 198 km heights over New Mexico on 29 January 1960 are reproduced here (18). It is to note that the investigators could not identify tall peaks. However, the wavelengths ended at 128.7 A were identified as solar X-rays and those from 128.7 A to 310 A as Bharat Radiation by the author in 2013 (15). Bharat Radiation with energy at eV level reached just up to 119 km above earth, providing definite evidence that long wavelengths travel slow and cover short distance. In comparison, the high energy solar X-rays at keV level could reach 16 km more up to 103 km height above earth. X-rays reaching more distance than Bharat radiation while travelling in space from Sun to earth provide definite evidence that higher energies (short wavelengths) travel faster and reach more distance in support Padmanabha Rao’s equation,

Third experimental evidence

The third evidence that velocity V depends upon energy E for an electromagnetic radiation or a fundamental particle has come from temperatures of atmospheric layers above earth (19).

Fig. 3. The Average Temperature Profile of Earth’s Atmosphere‟ reported by previous scientists is reproduced here (19). Earth’s atmosphere is known to have mainly 5 parts: Exosphere, Thermosphere, Mesosphere, Stratosphere and Troposphere. Previously, the temperatures measured at the specific ranges of heights were attributed to various reasons.

What causes the Atmospheric temperatures remained a puzzling issue as it involves complex phenomena. Since solar radiations have to pass through various atmospheric layers to reach earth, the author first thought they may play a significant role in causing a specific temperature at each range of height within the Thermosphere, Mesosphere, Stratosphere and Troposphere. As a first step, the author considered those solar radiations produced by ²³⁵uranium fission taking place on Sun’s core surface (ref.16) might be causing the temperatures shown in fig.3. In the next step, the author verified whether each solar radiation go with definite velocity, reach certain distance based on its energy, and occupies the designated atmospheric layer (fig.3). The author has found that the temperature of the layer is controlled by the nature of solar radiation (20).

In 2015, the author has classified the number of sub-atmospheric layers shown in Thermosphere, Mesosphere, Stratosphere and Troposphere in fig.3 according to the solar radiation present. A chain of solar emissions are released simultaneously from fission fragments (radioisotopes) present in solar flare, immediately after ²³⁵uranium fission taken place on Sun’s core surface (16). Solar γ-, β, and X-ray emissions first cause Bharat radiation with wavelengths from 12.87 to 31 nm, which in turn causes Extreme UV (EUV), UV, visible light, and near infrared radiation from same excited atom of a fission fragment like ¹³⁷Cs (15). All these solar radiations leave Sun towards earth with the underlying principle that higher energy (lower wavelength) radiation reach more distance and occupies an atmospheric layer there. Accordingly, γ-, β, and X-ray emissions reach maximum distance and form a layer. That is how Atmospheric layers are formed by solar radiations in accordance with their energies.

Exosphere

Above 500 km height has only one Atmospheric layer, constituting mainly the near infrared radiation, which causes high temperature from 500 ⁰C to 2000 ⁰C (figs.3, and 4). Among all solar radiations listed in the above para, near infra radiation has minimum energy, so it goes with minimum velocity and reaches minimum distance only up to nearly 500 km height (figs. 3 and 4). Because of least energy, the near infrared radiation remains even at Sun’s corona that is responsible for very high temperatures.

Thermosphere

Visible light: Among the four Atmospheric layers of Thermosphere, visible light occupies next to near infrared radiation towards earth, since visible light has slightly higher energy than near infrared radiation goes with faster velocity, reaches more distance. Therefore, I have identified the atmospheric layer from 500 to 110 km as of visible light. The intensity of near infrared radiation predominant above 500 km height steeply falls resulting in gradual fall of temperature from 500 ⁰C to 250 ⁰C as height reduces from 500 km to 110 km above Earth (figs 3 and 4). The visible light do not show any influence on temperature and simply allows temperature to fall to 250 ⁰C.

UV at superluminal velocity: Solar UV with higher energy than visible light reaches more distance. Therefore, I have identified the atmospheric layer from 110 to 100 km height above earth as of solar UV. For accurate heights of atmospheric layers I have also referred fig.7 in Ref. 20. The author has unfolded the key role of abundant solar UV here. It has caused the temperature to fall from 250 ⁰C to minus -85 ⁰C. UV causing low temperatures is common in regions somewhat close to North and south poles and at high altitudes in winter, when intensity of near infrared radiation reaches minimum or zero level.

EUV at superluminal velocity: EUV with higher energy than UV goes with faster velocity reach more distance than UV. Therefore, I have identified the atmospheric layer from 100 to 90 km height above earth as of EUV. The author has unfolded that the highly abundant EUV tends temperature to fall steeply further from minus – 85 ⁰C to minus -125 ⁰C. Likewise, solar EUV dips the temperatures to freezing temperatures in at North and South poles and regions all around.

Bharat Radiation at superluminal velocity: As Bharat Radiation, which produces EUV, UV, visible light and near infrared radiation has relatively higher energy than EUV, goes with faster velocity and reach more distance than EUV. Therefore, I have identified the atmospheric layer from 90 km to 84 km height from earth as of Bharat Radiation. However, the dominant Bharat Radiation do not bring any change in temperature, so maintains nearly the same as that of EUV at minus -120 ⁰C.

Most surprisingly, in the three Atmospheric layers of UV, EUV and Bharat Radiation at 110 to 84 km height the temperatures remain at below zero degrees, where Sunlight and heat are at very minimal level. Then the question arises, how heat and Sunlight are produced for sustenance of life below these layers on the earth’s surface.

Mesosphere

The γ, β, and X-ray emissions at superluminal velocities

Near infrared radiation

The solar γ, β, and X-ray emissions from fission products in solar flare with high energies at keV or MeV level go at maximum velocity reach maximum distance. Therefore, I have identified the atmospheric layer from 84-54 km height above earth as of solar γ, β, and X-ray emissions (figs.3 & 4). It seems energy of these three solar ionizing radiations dwindles away by travelling all the way from Sun. This can be the familiar ionosphere.

Possibly, at this height, earth’s gravity may play the key role in attracting these ionizing radiations. Therefore, while they are all approach towards earth, once again they produce a chain of daughter radiations described already. First, γ, β, and X-ray emission produce Bharat radiation, which in turn produce EUV, UV, visible light and near infrared radiation. However, as discussed already, their occupation in various layers depends upon how fast they go, and how much distance they reach finally. The near infrared radiation with minimum energy go with minimum velocity, so remain at 84 to 54 km height and raises temperature from -120 ⁰C to -15 ⁰C.

Visible light: Interestingly, it is for the second time the solar γ, β, and X-ray emissions generate visible light at 54 to 48 km height, while they first produce at 500 to 110 km height (fig.3). The visible light with higher energy than near infrared radiation go faster, reach more distance as described earlier, and form a layer at 54 to 48 km height next to near infrared radiation towards earth. Visible light do not bring any change in temperature, and maintains the same temperature of previous layer, so remains around -15 ⁰C.

UV at superluminal velocity: UV with higher energy goes faster than visible light and forms a layer from 48 to 33 km height (fig.7 Ref. 20). Fall of the atmospheric temperature from -15 ⁰C to -42 ⁰C supports the view that dominant UV from Sun causes freezing temperatures.

EUV at superluminal velocity: EUV with higher energy goes faster than UV, reach more distance from 33 to 20 km height (fig.7 Ref. 20) and forms a layer next to UV towards earth. Fall of the atmospheric temperature from -42 ⁰C to -58 ⁰C supports the view that dominant solar EUV further lowers the freezing temperatures.

Bharat Radiation at superluminal velocity: Bharat Radiation with higher energy goes faster than EUV reach more distance from 20 to 10 km height (fig.7 Ref. 20) and forms a layer. Bharat radiation maintains the temperature of previous atmospheric layer at about -58 ⁰C.

At 10 km height, gravitational waves heading γ, β, and X-ray emissions form a link with earth’s gravity, as a result, γ, β, and X-ray emissions acquire energy (20, 21). It is termed as Vemuluru effect (21). Due to gain in energy, γ, β, and X-ray emissions generate visible light and near infrared radiation, which raises the atmospheric temperature from – 58 ⁰C to 17 ⁰C within 10 km height above earth that helps sustenance of life.

Figure 4: Schematic diagram of temperatures at various atmospheric layers above earth measured by previous scientists (19). In 2015, the author reported for the first time that each atmospheric layer is occupied by a specific solar emission, depending upon its energy (20). Against the Einstein’s assertion that light goes at maximum speed, the author has shown that the highly energetic γ, β, and X-ray emissions at keV or MeV energies go at superluminal velocities and reach maximum distance up to 84 to 54 km height above earth and occupy a layer there, while Bharat Radiation, EUV, UV, and visible light occupy 4 layers in the decreasing order of energy. The near infrared radiation due to minimum energy fails to go far away, so remains in the Sun’s corona and can reach only up to 500 km height above Earth. Once again, the next 5 layers are occupied by chain of solar emissions up to 10 km height (20). Notably, temperature of each atmospheric layer depends upon the solar radiation present there and not due to greenhouse effect. Owing to Vemuluru Effect, excessive EUV and UV reach North and South poles and cause freezing temperatures.

The fourth and the best evidence on velocity depends upon energy

The best evidence to author’s claim that velocity depends upon its energy for an E.M. radiation or an elementary particle has come from optical measurements made from collision of neutron stars on 17th August 2017 (22). Early arrival of the UV and blue light over red light was reported from a bright spot called SSS17a. However, the popular formula E= mc² failed to explain the time difference observed.

However, the Padmanabha Rao’s equation E = V²explains that owing to higher energy, UV and blue light travelled with faster velocity and arrived earlier than red light. However, before arriving at such a conclusion, it became necessary to resolve a misunderstanding prevailing in the minds of scientists. That is to attribute the time difference to early starting of UV and blue light than red light. The author has clearly explained that owing to ²³⁵uranium fission ( Ref: 23) taking place in collision, all the detected radiations started simultaneously, but their arrival time differed. Therefore, higher energy and faster velocity of UV and blue light hold the key for their earlier arrival than that of red light.

Each component like blue or red light has a specific velocity.

UV, EUV go at superluminal velocities

At the time when Einstein made the assertion as light goes at maximum velocity c in his formula, he ignored the fact that light has many components: violet, blue, green, yellow, and red light. Early arrival of the UV and blue light over red light from SSS17a holds the key that each component of light has specific velocity V. In clear words, each wavelength of light has a specific velocity. In clear words, that owing to higher energy the former goes at faster velocity and reach early among the following pairs: (i) UV versus violet, (ii) violet versus blue, (iii) blue versus green, (iv) green versus yellow, and (v) yellow versus red. I have to re-define the term, superluminal velocity. Any velocity higher than that of violet light should be regarded as superluminal velocity. Therefore, UV, EUV (extreme ultraviolet light) go at superluminal velocities. Obviously, Bharat Radiation (12.87 to 31 nm) with energy at eV level and X-rays go at superluminal velocities (17).

Conclusion

The author reports a revolutionary breakthrough is modern physics, as the velocity of an E.M. radiation or an elementary particle such as electron or neutrino depends upon its energy, according to the Padmanabha Rao’s equation E = V². As per the new definition, any particle or radiation with the energy or wavelength exceeding that of the violet light go at superluminal velocities. Therefore, electrons that cause Cherenkov light also go at superluminal velocities. In 2013, this equation played the key role in my discovery of X-rays and Bharat Radiation (12.87 to 31 nm) going at superluminal velocities based on the measurements of solar spectra made by Woods et al. Conclusively, UV, EUV, beta particles, gamma rays, X-rays, and neutrinos all go at superluminal velocities.

References

Rhessi captures new light from sun, reveals surprises in solar flares, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. June 05, 2002

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020605rhessi.html

A.Padmanabha Rao, Solar X-rays, gamma rays, and electrons cause EUV by a previously unknown atomic phenomenon, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference, Human Ecology and Nature (HEN 2008) held at Moscow- Ples, Russia diring 27 June to July 2, 2008, (Ed) Vladimir V.Zaitsev, Moscow Scientific and Industrial Association “Radon”, P 45-50, 2008. http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/1010/Solarfission.html
Particles break light-speed limit, Neutrino results challenge cornerstone of modern physics. Published online 22 September 2011| Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.554, Refer my comment 27198: A fresh interpretation of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence supports ‘superluminal’ neutrinos detected by OPERA http://archive.is/2cj9.

Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos? Physics Luminaries Voice Doubts, By John Matson, American Express September 26, 2011. https://archive.is/kov4k

Breaking: Researchers at CERN break “The Speed of Light”, April 01, 2018

http://www.physics-astronomy.org/2018/04/breaking-researchers-at-cern-break.html

A. Padmanabha Rao, Atomic emission of light from sources of ionizing radiation by a new phenomenon, Technical Report No: DLJ/ IL/ 97/ 7, April 1977, Defence Laboratory (Defence Research and Development Organizaion, Ministry of Defence, Government of India) Jodhpur 342011, Rajasthan, India, April 1997), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260438387_16_ATOMIC_EMISSION_OF_LIGHT_FROM_SOURCES_OF
A. Padmanabha Rao, Radioisotopes and X-ray sources emit fluorescent light by an atomic phenomenon, Proceedings of the 12th National Symposium on Radiation Physics, 1998, pp 273-276. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259283620_18_RADIOISOTOPES_AND_X-RAY_SOURCES_EMIT_FLUORESCENT_LIGHT_BY_AN_ATOMIC_PHENOMENON
MA Padmanabha Rao, Light emission observed from ionizing radiation sources by an atomic phenomenon, Invited Paper in National Symposium on Contemporary Physics, November 6-8, 1997, Physics Department, Presidency College, Kolkata, India, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259533001_17_LIGHT_EMISSION_OBSERVED_FROM_IONIZING_RADIATION_SOURCES_BY
A. Padmanabha Rao, X-ray source emits not only x-rays but also low energy electromagnetic radiation. Presented in 1998 Symposium on Radiation Measurements and Applications, Ninth in a series, Ann Arbor, U.S.A., 1998, Abstract 3PW26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259357540_19_X-RAY_SOURCE_EMITS_NOT_ONLY_X-RAYS_BUT_ALSO_LOW_ENERGY_ELECTROMAGNETIC_RADIATION
A.Padmanabha Rao, Possible biological effects by UV radiation newly detected from internally administered radioisotopes. in Proceedings of the Symposium on Low Level Electromagnetic Phenomena in Biological Systems (BIOSYS-’99), Eds. Jitendra Behari and Indian Journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics, National Institute of Science Communication, New Delhi-110012, 1999, p 68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259295739_20_POSSIBLE_BIOLOGICAL_EFFECTS_BY_UV_RADIATION_NEWLY_DETECTED_FROM_INTERNALLY_ADMINISTERED_RADIOISOTOPES
A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of light emission from XRF sources, Presented in 50th Annual Denver Conference, Steamboat Springs, U.S.A. Abstract F-01, p.124. http://www.dxcicdd.com/01/pdf/F-01.pdf
A.Padmanabha Rao, Room temperature atomic spectra from solid radioisotopes and XRF sources, 34 Conference of European Group for Atomic Spectroscopy, At Department of Physics, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2002, Volume: abstract F2-4, p.103,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259357495_22_ROOM_TEMPERATURE_ATOMIC_SPECTRA_FROM_SOLID_RADIOISO

A.Padmanabha Rao, Invited paper, Solar X-rays, gamma rays, and electrons cause EUV by a previously unknown atomic phenomenon, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human Ecology and Nature (HEN2008), Moscow-Ples, Russia, 2008, Moscow Scientific and Industrial Association “Radon”, p.45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259356270_23_SOLAR_X-RAYS_GAMMA_RAYS_AND_ELECTRONS_CAUSE_EUV_BY_A_PREVIOUSLY_UNKNOWN_ATOMIC_PHENOMENON
A.Padmanabha Rao, UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources, Braz. J. Phy., 40, no 1, 38¬46, 2010. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332010000100007.

View the details of the six fundamental physics discoveries claimed in the above paper in : M.A.Padmanabha Rao, Bharat radiation and UV dominant optical radiation emissions discovered from radioisotopes and XRF (X-ray fluorescent) sources,

Discovery, Volume 4, Number 10, April 2013 www.discoveryjournals.org/discovery/current_issue/v4/n10/A2.pdf?

A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Sun’s Bharat Radiation emission causing Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) and UV dominant optical radiation, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP) ,Volume 3, Issue 2 (Mar. – Apr. 2013), PP 56¬60, DOI: 10.9790/4861¬0325660

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol3-issue2/H0325660.pdf

A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Self – Sustained ²³⁵U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), Volume 4, Issue 2 (Jul. – Aug. 2013), PP 06¬24,

DOI:

10.9790/4861-0420624

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue2/B0420624.pdf

A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of superluminal velocities of X-rays and Bharat Radiation challenging the validity of Einstein’s formula E= mc^2, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), .Volume 4, Issue 4 (Sep. ¬ Oct. 2013), PP 08¬14, DOI: 10.9790/4861¬0440814, http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue4/B0440814.pdf?id=3522
E. Hinteregger, L. A. Hall, and W. Schweizer, Solar Xuv-Spectrum from 310 Å to 55 Å, Astrophysical Journal, 140, 1964, 319- 326. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1964ApJ…140..319H
The Earth’s Atmosphere, Layers of Earth’s Atmosphere. http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers_activity_print.html
A.Padmanabha Rao, All the Sunlight that Earth Receives is not Directly from Sun, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, Issue 11, November 2015, https://www.ijirset.com/upload/2015/november/50_6_All_the.pdf

A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Padmanabha Rao Effect controlling planetary temperatures, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, Issue 12, December 2015, DOI>10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0412129

https://www.ijirset.com/upload/2015/december/129_33_Discovery.pdf

Davide Castelvecchi, Colliding stars spark rush to solve cosmic mysteries, Stellar collision confirms theoretical predictions about the periodic table, Nature| News, 16 October 2017

https://www.nature.com/news/colliding-stars-spark-rush-to-solve-cosmic-mysteries-1.22829

A.Padmanabha Rao, (An article) Discovery of ²³⁵uranium fission taking place in collision of neutron stars causing gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiations, March 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323487137_Discovery_of_235-_uranium_fission_taking_place_in_collision_of_neutron_stars_causing_gravitational_waves_and_electromagnetic_radiations

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (41)

Ken Hughes

October 18, 2018 at 12:49 pm | #

So how does he explain the” MAGIC” telescope results from the blazar in Makarin 500 and the SN1987A supernova results which both showed that higher frequency light took longer to reach us than lower frequency light over great distances? It seems to me he has not fully defined the relative timings of the initial emissions of the different frequencies. He may be recording that, as opposed to different velocities. Otherwise there is a serious conflict of data.

Reply
- Ken Hughes
  
  October 18, 2018 at 1:22 pm | #
  
  Also, the “speed of light”, “c” seems to have been taken as the speed of VISIBLE light, using that as the reference velocity and this is debatable. Visible light is a particular (small) range of frequencies within the EMR spectrum and one could argue about which of these constitutes the value of “c”. Certainly Einstein took “c” as being a constant without acknowledging there may be a tiny “range of speeds of the EMR dependant upon frequency. Nevertheless, this does not invalidate relativity but merely expands upon it. The speed of light is often talked about as “the speed of causality” or, as I would suggest, “the speed of time”. The exact speed of which EMR frequency is that of “c” is open to conjecture, but I would say only a totally mass less particle could achieve it. Even a photon has a tiny mass and so “c” becomes an arbitrary, theoretical speed that no particle ever quite attains.
  
  Reply
  - M. A. Padmanabha Rao
    
    October 20, 2018 at 9:55 am | #
    
    You have raised an important topic. The words, velocity of light need to be redefined because I have shown that each component of light: violet, blue, green, yellow, near infrared red.
    
    You said, certainly Einstein took “c” as being a constant without acknowledging there may be a tiny “range of speeds of the EMR dependant upon frequency. Nevertheless, this does not invalidate relativity but merely expands upon it.
    My reply: I did not invalidate Relativity. It is nice that you agree with me in your saying , “certainly Einstein took “c” as being a constant without acknowledging there may be a tiny “range of speeds of the EMR dependant upon frequency”
    
    Reply
- M. A. Padmanabha Rao
  
  October 20, 2018 at 10:02 am | #
  
  Refer your statement, “MAGIC” telescope results from the blazar in Makarin 500 and the SN1987A supernova results which both showed that higher frequency light took longer to reach us than lower frequency light over great distances”.
  My reply: Certainly, higher frequencies took longer to reach us is incorrect, according to my formula E =square of velocity V, which explains higher frequencies arrive early.
  
  Reply
Robert Beatty

October 19, 2018 at 5:45 am | #

The concept of entangled particles (EP) needs to be explained. It seems to me that EP establishes that communication between discrete locations in space can occur through a rapid and continuing conversion of energy into mass and then back to energy. In this model the alignment is already established, but measuring the micro bursts of the energy phase can happen at speeds greater than “c” because we are measuring reappearing points along a previously established line. Hence the greater the energy involved in the transmission, the greater the apparent speed.
The gravity phenomenon appears to be a type example of EP.

Reply
- M. A. Padmanabha Rao
  
  October 20, 2018 at 9:43 am | #
  
  You did not refer to any aspect of my article whether right or wrong.
  
  But you said, the concept of entangled particles (EP) needs to be explained. Four examples are cited on faster than light. Try to understand what I said. It needs knowledge in nuclear physics.
  
  Reply
  - Robert Beatty
    
    October 21, 2018 at 3:17 am | #
    
    Thank you Dr Rao. Your formula is Padmanabha Rao’s Equation E = V2 You then provide four examples of evidence to support your theory.
    I have noted “Hence the greater the energy involved in the transmission, the greater the apparent speed.”
    This seems to support your equation’s conjecture via the EP route. Or are you taking a different view?
    
    Reply
    - M. A. Padmanabha Rao
      
      October 21, 2018 at 6:45 am | #
      
      Thanks for supporting my formula and its explanation, higher the energy faster the velocity. I have no clear idea about EP as I never dealt the topic in my research. However, if you feel my formula supports EP, happily try to link in your future papers and articles. Good luck.
      
      Reply
      - Robert Beatty
        
        October 22, 2018 at 2:50 am | #
        
        I note your comment “. I have no clear idea about EP as I never dealt the topic in my research.”
        So much of break through physics involves combining strings of evidence from different branches of investigations. EP theory is raised in my paper, currently under peer review at PSI, ref: https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PROM-Gravispheres.pdf The section on MATTER WAVES (Figure 3) are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, being an example of wave–particle duality which you may find has some commonality with your nuclear wave and superluminal velocity research findings.
        Any contribution you care to add to the PSI peer review process would be most welcome.
Herb Rose

October 19, 2018 at 11:17 pm | #

Hello Dr, Rao,
I agree with you that E=V^2 but I do not agree with your evidence supporting the claim.
The neutrino was created because E=mc^2 did not give the correct answer for the energy produced by the radioactive decay of atoms. It was designed to be undetectable (no mass or charge) because there was no evidence of its existence and was strictly the result of belief in the theory. If your conclusion is right than your evidence does not exist. (I consider accelerators as crap science since they only discover what they are looking for and nothing new.)
There are experiments (Dr. Nimitz) and observations from the Hubble telescope that show microwaves and even stars moving faster than the speed of light but this evidence is ignored or explained with some silly excuse (tunneling photons) that defies reason. (Drafting by race cars does not increase the maximum speed of the car only reduce the resistance it encounters.) This is done to preserve the fundament tenant of modern physics, Einstein is always right.Physics started from philosophy where reason and logic were used to determine what the world was like. Galileo introduced experimentation and observation necessitating that reason had to conform to reality. Since Einstein reason is discarded, evidence ignored, and fundamental principles, like the conservation of matter and energy, have become irrelevant. The basic truth of modern physics is that Einstein is right no matter what. You cannot convince the true believers by logic evidence any other means that they are wrong anymore than you can convince a person that believes the Bible is the ultimate source of truth that it can’t be right. Trying to use Einsteinian physics to prove Einstein is wrong is futile.
The proof of the mistake is in the lack of proof for it. In physics you are not allowed to make unsupported claims which the photon and constant speed of light are. The photon was created by Einstein because of the objection to a wave nature of light posed by the photoelectric effect. This is not a valid objection since the photoelectric effect can just be another version of the piezo electric effect where light of the right wavelength distorts a bond in a crystal dislodging an electron. If light is a wave (traveling in the electric and magnetic fields) then it speed cannot be constant but varies with the strength of the fields it travels in. Light doesn’t bend around the sun because of gravity but because of the stronger fields and the red and blue shift are not the result of a Doppler effect but because the light travels through fields of different strengthen altering its wavelengths (hence light with both a red and blue shift).
When you ask what evidnce there is of the constant speed of light the Michelson-Morley experiment is cited. They are saying that an experiment designed to detect a special aether in which light traveled failed to detect this non-existent aether and this shows that the speed of light is constant. Rubbish.
Your use of the temperature in the atmosphere i don’t believe is valid. In order to detect radiated energy, V^2,( a disturbance int the electric and magnetic fields) it must interact with an object and be converted to kinetic energy (heat), just as light must strike an object to be detected. The energy an object absorbs depends on it matching the size of its fields with the wave length of the energy. Temperature is a function of energy and matter so in order to compare the energy at different altitudes you must divide the absolute temperature by the density to get the kinetic energy per gram of molecules. When this is done that strange looking curve turns into an exponential curve increasing with altitude.
To find out why I believe E=V^2 I refer you to my article in PSI A NEW THEORY OF GRAVITY. If anyone is reading this I have never heard plausible reason for the high tide on the side of the Earth opposite the moon. If you use vectors to represent the gravitational pull the largest vector directed towards the center of the Earth is where the water moves away from it on the far side of the Earth. If someone has a good reason for this happening I would appreciate hearing it.
Have a good day,
Herb

Reply
- M. A. Padmanabha Rao
  
  October 20, 2018 at 9:32 am | #
  
  You agreement with my formula, E = V2 is a greatest victory for me for all the efforts that I made since 1988.
  You have stated, “there was no evidence of its (neutrino’s) existence and was strictly the result of belief in the theory”.
  My reply: you are mistaken in saying “as there is no evidence of neutrino’s existence. Detection of neutrinos was well documented.
  You have stated, there are experiments (Dr. Nimitz) and observations from the Hubble telescope that show microwaves and even stars moving faster than the speed of light but this evidence is ignored or explained with some silly excuse (tunneling photons) that defies reason.
  My reply: Since you agree with my formula, E = V2 microwaves moving faster than light cannot be correct.
  You have stated, this is done to preserve the fundament tenant of modern physics, Einstein is always right. Physics started from philosophy where reason and logic were used to determine what the world was like. Galileo introduced experimentation and observation necessitating that reason had to conform to reality. Since Einstein reason is discarded, evidence ignored, and fundamental principles, like the conservation of matter and energy, have become irrelevant. The basic truth of modern physics is that Einstein is right no matter what. You cannot convince the true believers by logic evidence any other means that they are wrong any more than you can convince a person that believes the Bible is the ultimate source of truth that it can’t be right. Trying to use Einsteinian physics to prove Einstein is wrong is futile.
  My reply: Once you agree with my formula, then the Einstein’s assertion automatically becomes incorrect. You said, the basic truth of modern physics is that Einstein is right no matter what. Now my article proved otherwise.
  You have stated, your use of the temperature in the atmosphere i don’t believe is valid.
  My reply: To understand what I explained on atmospheric temperatures, the reader should be a nuclear physicist with good understanding of fission. Prior to know about atmospheric temperatures, reader should read my two papers published in 2013.
  M. A. Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Self – Sustained 235U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), Volume 4, Issue 2 (Jul. – Aug. 2013), PP 06¬24,
  DOI: 10.9790/4861-0420624
  http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue2/B0420624.pdf
  M. A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of superluminal velocities of X-rays and Bharat Radiation challenging the validity of Einstein’s formula E= mc^2, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), .Volume 4, Issue 4 (Sep. ¬ Oct. 2013), PP 08¬14, DOI: 10.9790/4861¬0440814, http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue4/B0440814.pdf?id=3522
  
  Reply
M. A. Padmanabha Rao

October 20, 2018 at 9:33 am | #

You agreement with my formula, E = V2 is a greatest victory for me for all the efforts that I made since 1988.
You have stated, “there was no evidence of its (neutrino’s) existence and was strictly the result of belief in the theory”.
My reply: you are mistaken in saying “as there is no evidence of neutrino’s existence. Detection of neutrinos was well documented.
You have stated, there are experiments (Dr. Nimitz) and observations from the Hubble telescope that show microwaves and even stars moving faster than the speed of light but this evidence is ignored or explained with some silly excuse (tunneling photons) that defies reason.
My reply: Since you agree with my formula, E = V2 microwaves moving faster than light cannot be correct.
You have stated, this is done to preserve the fundament tenant of modern physics, Einstein is always right. Physics started from philosophy where reason and logic were used to determine what the world was like. Galileo introduced experimentation and observation necessitating that reason had to conform to reality. Since Einstein reason is discarded, evidence ignored, and fundamental principles, like the conservation of matter and energy, have become irrelevant. The basic truth of modern physics is that Einstein is right no matter what. You cannot convince the true believers by logic evidence any other means that they are wrong any more than you can convince a person that believes the Bible is the ultimate source of truth that it can’t be right. Trying to use Einsteinian physics to prove Einstein is wrong is futile.
My reply: Once you agree with my formula, then the Einstein’s assertion automatically becomes incorrect. You said, the basic truth of modern physics is that Einstein is right no matter what. Now my article proved otherwise.
You have stated, your use of the temperature in the atmosphere i don’t believe is valid.
My reply: To understand what I explained on atmospheric temperatures, the reader should be a nuclear physicist with good understanding of fission. Prior to know about atmospheric temperatures, reader should read my two papers published in 2013.
M. A. Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Self – Sustained 235U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), Volume 4, Issue 2 (Jul. – Aug. 2013), PP 06¬24,
DOI: 10.9790/4861-0420624
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue2/B0420624.pdf
M. A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of superluminal velocities of X-rays and Bharat Radiation challenging the validity of Einstein’s formula E= mc^2, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), .Volume 4, Issue 4 (Sep. ¬ Oct. 2013), PP 08¬14, DOI: 10.9790/4861¬0440814, http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue4/B0440814.pdf?id=3522

Reply
M. A. Padmanabha Rao

October 20, 2018 at 9:35 am | #

Your agreement with my formula, E = V2 is the greatest victory for me for all the efforts that I made since 1988.
You have stated, “there was no evidence of its (neutrino’s) existence and was strictly the result of belief in the theory”.
My reply: you are mistaken in saying “as there is no evidence of neutrino’s existence. Detection of neutrinos was well documented.
You have stated, there are experiments (Dr. Nimitz) and observations from the Hubble telescope that show microwaves and even stars moving faster than the speed of light but this evidence is ignored or explained with some silly excuse (tunneling photons) that defies reason.
My reply: Since you agree with my formula, E = V2 microwaves moving faster than light cannot be correct.
You have stated, this is done to preserve the fundament tenant of modern physics, Einstein is always right. Physics started from philosophy where reason and logic were used to determine what the world was like. Galileo introduced experimentation and observation necessitating that reason had to conform to reality. Since Einstein reason is discarded, evidence ignored, and fundamental principles, like the conservation of matter and energy, have become irrelevant. The basic truth of modern physics is that Einstein is right no matter what. You cannot convince the true believers by logic evidence any other means that they are wrong any more than you can convince a person that believes the Bible is the ultimate source of truth that it can’t be right. Trying to use Einsteinian physics to prove Einstein is wrong is futile.
My reply: Once you agree with my formula, then the Einstein’s assertion automatically becomes incorrect. You said, the basic truth of modern physics is that Einstein is right no matter what. Now my article proved otherwise.
You have stated, your use of the temperature in the atmosphere i don’t believe is valid.
My reply: To understand what I explained on atmospheric temperatures, the reader should be a nuclear physicist with good understanding of fission. Prior to know about atmospheric temperatures, reader should read my two papers published in 2013.
M. A. Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Self – Sustained 235U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), Volume 4, Issue 2 (Jul. – Aug. 2013), PP 06¬24,
DOI: 10.9790/4861-0420624
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue2/B0420624.pdf
M. A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of superluminal velocities of X-rays and Bharat Radiation challenging the validity of Einstein’s formula E= mc^2, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), .Volume 4, Issue 4 (Sep. ¬ Oct. 2013), PP 08¬14, DOI: 10.9790/4861¬0440814, http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue4/B0440814.pdf?id=3522

Reply
jerry krause

October 20, 2018 at 3:56 pm | #

Hi Readers,

Maybe I shouldn’t make a comment but I am a chemist and it seems some times I get irritated by the pronouncements of physicists who seem to forget who did the experiments which forced the conclusion that matter is not endlessly divisible but is instead composed of tiny particles (atoms) which cannot be further divided and retain the elemental properties of ‘the atom’.

And it was the chemists who did the experiments which produced the periodic law of the elements based upon the chemical and physical properties of the purified elementary matter.

So when Professor Rao states: “The Newtonian kinetic energy equation k.e = ½ mv2 went into oblivion with the emergence of Albert Einstein’s formula E = mc2 in his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.”, I must state that I as a chemist never considered the E of Einstein’s equation was the Newtonian kinetic energy because we knew there certain were more forms of energy than Newtonian kinetic energy. I, and I believe other chemists, only understood that matter could be transformed into some form of energy. Which when an exothermic chemical reaction occurred we could not begin to measure of decrease of the reactants’ mass relative to the resulting mass of the products.

And we readily acknowledge it was the experiments of the physics which finally gave structure to the atom about which we really had no idea except that the atomic must have some geometric structure because there were may observations matter’s geometric crystalline structure.

So while I admit to know nothing about the nucleus except that fundamental particles are protons and neutrons, I do question the validity of Professor Rao’s claim that Einstein’s E was (is) only a kinetic energy.

Have a good day, Jerry

Reply
- M. A. Padmanabha Rao
  
  October 21, 2018 at 6:59 am | #
  
  Please refer your statement, I do question the validity of Professor Rao’s claim that Einstein’s E was (is) only a kinetic energy.
  My reply: I have taken exclusively specific instances to establish the fact that velocities of elementary particles (electron and neutrino) and E.M.Radiation (gamma rays, X-rays, EUV, UV) by my formula and four evidences. In this article, I have not dealt with chemical reactions; or electron-positron annihilation where Einstein’s formula could be of great use.
  
  Regarding your question, whether Einstein’s E was (is) only a kinetic energy. Since this article is not a review article, I did not deal much on his formula because I have highlighted the uses of my formula.
  
  Reply
  - jerry krause
    
    October 21, 2018 at 2:08 pm | #
    
    Hi Professor Rao,
    
    I have admitted that my knowledge about neutrinos is extremely limited. But I have read that they have been extremely difficult to detect. Electrons are not extremely difficult to detect and the phenomenon of electron diffraction was observational evidence electrons had wave-like properties. I have read that because the speed of light in Einstein’s equation became a fundamental constant, great effort was made to experimentally measure its velocity more precisely.
    
    Because the detection of a single neutrino seems so rare, I question: What experiment, similar to that used to actually measure the velocity of light, could produce any actual evidence of a neutrino’s velocity?
    
    Have a good day, Jerry
    
    Reply
    - M. A. Padmanabha Rao
      
      October 22, 2018 at 4:59 am | #
      
      You said, because the detection of a single neutrino seems so rare, I question: What experiment, similar to that used to actually measure the velocity of light, could produce any actual evidence of a neutrino’s velocity?
      My reply:
      Let us discuss what had happened with OPERA Experiment. Theoretically, neutrinos with energy at GeV level are expected to go faster than light, according to my formula E =V^2. What the OPERA scientists claimed is correct theoretically. Since luminaries and the entire scientific community refuted their claim, probably, to avoid nuisance the Opera scientists might have told instrumental error. If the experimental set up does not confirm the theory as neutrinos going faster than light, then it is the duty of scientists to correct the experimental set up.
      
      Reply
    - jerry krause
      
      October 22, 2018 at 2:21 pm | #
      
      Hi Professor Rao,
      
      “What the OPERA scientists claimed is correct theoretically.” Immediately below your comment James McGinn had written: “You cannot convince the true believers by logic evidence any other means that they are wrong any more than you can convince a person that believes the Bible is the ultimate source of truth.”
      
      You base your scientific theory on logical reasoning as does James relative to his idea that the earth’s atmosphere’s does not contain any independent water molecules.
      
      My reply to both of you is that what we observe as scientists is not logical. For is it logical that the atom is mainly empty space? So that most alpha particles passed through the gold foil as if there was nothing there. Which forced the consideration that an electron (with mass and electrical charge) could have ‘wave like properties) as it was assumed that light (radiation) had. Then Einstein had to assume, based on the observation of the photoelectric effect, that light was particle-like which most scientists accept as photons.
      
      And then there is the mystery of life, which isn’t too logical either. I prefer to believe what can be observed and not upon what I think or you think.
      
      Have a good day, Jerry
      
      Reply
      - M. A. Padmanabha Rao
        
        October 22, 2018 at 3:02 pm | #
        
        You said correctly, I prefer to believe what can be observed. That is why I have provided four examples that evidently showed faster than light.
      - Hierb Rose
        
        October 22, 2018 at 6:39 pm | #
        
        Hi Jerry,
        When you say an atom is mostly empty space you are referring to mater. The space within the atom is not empty anymore than deep spaces empty. They both contain fields (electrical and magnetic) that effect other objects.The mater of atoms (electrons) do not touch when atoms collide. The electrical fields interact causing the atoms to recoil before they actually touch. There is light traveling through all the empty spaces in all directions but you do not see this light until it strikes an object and interacts with it. You do not detect matter until energy reveals it and you do not detect energy until mater reveals it. So even though space may appear as empty it is not, it just needs something to reveal the fields it contains.
        Have a good day,
        Herb
James McGinn

October 20, 2018 at 5:29 pm | #

M. A. Padmanabha Rao:
“The basic truth of modern physics is that Einstein is right no matter what. You cannot convince the true believers by logic evidence any other means that they are wrong any more than you can convince a person that believes the Bible is the ultimate source of truth . . . ”

JMcG:
Right. Humans are sheep.

Once a belief is established us humans have a tremendous capacity to ignore any facts that contradict that “truth.” Let me give you an example in a different discipline. About 170 years ago the father of meteorology, a guy named Espy, developed a theory to explain storms. Many of the assumptions underlying this theory were non-physical. For example, he assumed H2O magically defied its known boiling temperature to become gaseous at ambient temperature in order to assert than moist air was lighter than dry air, thereby explaining how “lighter” moist air convected up through heavier dry air. Of course this is completely impossible. H2O doesn’t become gaseous at ambient temperatures and moist air can only be heavier per volume than dry air. So some other mechanism causes storms. But people are stupid, lazy and sheepish.

This retarded notion still persists. Meteorologists have learned to avoid the subject.

Humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don’t have the time or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made giving these science consumers excuses for why they don’t actually have to literally understand it. And so–for reasons of fiscal necessity–many scientific disciplines have dumbed down their models to go with the flow of what people want to believe.

It is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every scientific discipline that are sacred. Their validity is beyond dispute and cannot be contradicted without the person being shunned by the larger discipline. Or, more simply put, certain subjects are taboo.

The anomalies of H2O are a severe embarrassment to all of the scientific disciplines in which water plays a central role. And, obviously, this includes all of the natural sciences but also physics and chemistry. The misconceptions associated with these anomalies are central to all of the various disciplines in the natural sciences.

This results in a consensus of obnoxious dunces in the natural sciences. These nitwits dismiss and evade contradictions that conflict with these artificially simplistic models. Like martyrs to a religious cause, they are willing to sacrifice their own reputation in order to preserve the perceived sanctity of their science-based beliefs.

Stupidity lies at the heart of most traditional notions in the natural sciences.

We are surrounded by simple nitwits who are attached to simple models.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

Reply
- M. A. Padmanabha Rao
  
  October 22, 2018 at 3:06 pm | #
  
  First of all, do you agree with me E = mc^2 does not explain whether X-rays go faster than light or not?
  
  Reply
  - James McGinn
    
    October 22, 2018 at 4:52 pm | #
    
    I certainly do agree that that equation does not allow for there to be any variability in C. And so, if you have found reproducible evidence that C does vary then E = mc2 must be either incomplete or wrong. Or, possibly, the supposition that E is a constant might not be perfectly accurate.
    
    Now that I have answered your question may be you could answer mine. Do you believe, as do all meteorologists, that the boiling temperature of H2O is lower in the atmosphere than has ever been detected in a laboratory?
    
    Read this for details:
    We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
    
    Are you willing to stand up to all the frauds and fools who would have us believe that H2O magically changes its boiling temperature in the atmosphere?
    
    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    
    Reply
Herb Rose

October 20, 2018 at 10:33 pm | #

Hello again Dr. Rao,
I have some questions regarding your arguments.
If the sun is powered by U235 fission where is the lead that is the end product of uranium decay? I agree that the sun is not powered by fusion (in fact I think the hydrogen and helium on the sun are the ashes from the production of radiated energy.) but I don’t believe fission provides a better explanation.
You speak of gravitational waves combining with other energies to raise the temperature in the atmosphere. Gravitational waves are a product of Einstein’s general relativity and a constant speed of light. Again isn’t your conclusion that the speed of light is not constant but varies and can be exceeded negating the argument you use?
Have a good day,
Herb

Reply
M. A. Padmanabha Rao

October 22, 2018 at 5:23 am | #

You said, I have some questions regarding your arguments.
If the sun is powered by U235 fission where is the lead that is the end product of uranium decay? I agree that the sun is not powered by fusion (in fact I think the hydrogen and helium on the sun are the ashes from the production of radiated energy.) but I don’t believe fission provides a better explanation.
My reply: your question gave me some fun because you used the term ash. Seemingly, you are not a nuclear physicist. It does not matter. I will explain. The end products of fission are known as fission products. In 2013, for the first time, I have shown the beta, gamma, X-ray energies of many fission products cause as many as 153 solar lines.

Ref: M.A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Sun’s Bharat Radiation emission causing Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) and UV dominant optical radiation, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), Volume 3, Issue 2 (Mar. – Apr. 2013), PP 56¬60, http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol3-issue2/H0325660.pdf

You said, (in fact I think the hydrogen and helium on the sun are the ashes from the production of radiated energy.)
My reply: None of the solar lines show Hydrogen (Refer above mentioned paper and the figure on solar spectrum reported by Woods et al). I have reported in that paper, the solar line at 30.4 nm attributed as He line is not agreeing with the spectrum measured by NIST, USA. I would mention simple examples to better understand the situation on Sun’s core surface. You know the properties of Hydrogen and Helium gas. You have seen helium baloons flying high while playing by children. Do you think, such Helium gas remains on Sun’s core surface at very high temperatures, when a Helium baloon tries to fly high, escaping from our hands? Why our astrophysicists do not realize this? If they know this simple fact, why did they show in solar spectrum? So, I am not at fault in showing fission causing Sunlight.

Reply
- Herb Rose
  
  October 22, 2018 at 9:43 am | #
  
  Hello again Dr. Rao
  In reply to your question no I don’t believe that the hydrogen and helium remain on the sun. The reason I mention them is because of the current fusion model of energy production by the sun, the theory is that most of the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium and they are the fuel that produces its energy. I believe that the atoms of the elements that are here on Earth are produced in the sun’s corona and propelled into space as the solar winds and then condense on the trash piles known as the planets.
  To see my theory on solar energy you can read my article in PSI HOW IT ALL WORKS where I start by wondering how a nucleus could expel an electron (beta, which would bind the protons together) with enough force to overcome the attractive force between the beta particle and protons in the nucleus and then pass through the repelling force of the surrounding electrons resulting in a more stable nucleus with a stronger binding force holding more protons together.I reason that there are no strong and weak nuclear forces and end up concluding that the sun burns backwards.
  As you mentioned in your article the beta particles produced by different elements have different speeds resulting from different energies. This is a characteristic of particles but not waves like light and X-rays. The speed of a wave is determined by the medium in which travels. An electromagnetic wave travels in the electric and magnetic fields that permeate the universe (the aether). In water the molecules of water move up and down as the wave passes through them. In an electromagnetic wave, using the right hand rule, the electrical field moves along the axis of the index finger. the magnetic field moves along the axis of the thumb, and the motion of the wave is along the axis of the middle finger. Changing the wave lengths, frequency, or amplitude of the waves does not change the speed of the wave. If you increase the power of a speaker playing music it does not separate the different notes causing the short high motes to arrive before the longer bass notes. Light is an electromagnetic wave as the Young experiment showed and there is no particle nature (photon) to it just as there is no wave nature of an electron. (A moving electron will produce an electromagnetic wave but that is a result in it producing a change in the electric field not a characteristic of the electron.) As you know I do not believe in the existence of the neutrino and the evidence for it is a result of people looking for some excuse to support an existing belief. It is easy to prove what you already believe. The proof of the non existent gravity waves and Higgs particles are examples of that. If you look for something hard enough you will find it whether it exists or not.
  In case you try to read my article cited I need to explain that I have a different concept of energy. I believe that energy is a thing (a field) that along with mater (also a field) combine to form the objects in the universe. The energy of objects is a result of them equalizing with the energy field they are it. The energy of waves is a change in the energy and mater fields.
  Have a good day,
  Herb
  
  Reply
Herb Rose

October 22, 2018 at 2:51 pm | #

Hello again Dr. Rao,
Sorry to pester you with question but I’m stuck in bed with an injured knee and can’t do much else, so I have some more questions.
If the sun is powered by fission of U235 and the half life of U237 is .704 billion years then wouldn’t most of it be gone after 4.6 billion years?
The sun has a large magnetic and electrical field so when you are assessing spectra lines how do you account for the Zeeman and Stark effects which cause the spectral lines of an element to shift?
Have a good day,
Herb

Reply
M. A. Padmanabha Rao

October 22, 2018 at 3:31 pm | #

I wish you a speedy recovery. If I understand your first question correctly, you are interested to know what happens when uranium gets exhausted on Sun’s core surface. Fission takes place simultaneously at various sites on Sun’s core surface. They CONSTANTLY emit gamma, beta, X-rays, Bharat radiation (12.87 to 31 nm), Extreme UV (EUV), UV, Visible light, and Near-infrared radiation, which provides optimal heat for the sustenance of life on earth. Padmanabha Rao Effect causes emissions from Bharat Radiation to Near-infrared radiation. The specific energy of gamma, beta, or X-ray of a fission product such as 137-Cs or 131-Iodine is responsible for producing a spectral line. I am the first scientist in explaining how solar lines are caused and as many as 153 lines.
Ref: M.A.Padmanabha Rao,
Discovery of Self ¬Sustained 235¬U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), Volume 4, Issue 2 (Jul. – Aug. 2013), PP 06¬24,
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue2/B0420624.pdf

Reply
- Herb Rose
  
  October 22, 2018 at 6:55 pm | #
  
  Hi Dr. Rao,
  I am sorry if I didn’t make my question clear. Since radioactive materials have a half life, they convert to non-radioactive atoms with time. This would cause a steady decline in the output of energy from the sun. My question was that since the sun is 4.6 billion years old wouldn’t the amount of U235 on toys sun be about 1/70 of the starting amount of U235 and wouldn’t this decline mean as sharp decline in the energy produced by the sun?
  Have a good day,
  Herb
  
  Reply
  - jerry krause
    
    October 22, 2018 at 7:48 pm | #
    
    Hi Herb,
    
    Before I let your consideration slide because you wrote “If”. Now it seems you do not consider your hypothetical to be hypothetical. So I ask you: Am I confused when I consider that the ‘energy’ of stars (our sun) is due to nuclear fusion reactions and not nuclear fission reactions?
    
    Have a good day, Jerry
    
    Reply
    - Herb Rose
      
      October 22, 2018 at 9:55 pm | #
      
      The current theory for energy production is fusion but according to the evidence this is impossible
      To create a helium atom you must have 4 hydrogen atoms (2 as hydrogen and 2 as neutrons) come together simultaneously and fuse. To form lithium you must have a helium atom and three hydrogen atoms come together simultaneously and fuse. The larger the atom the more atoms must come together to form it. Hydrogen and helium are plentiful but lithium is rare so its use as building block is not practical.
      Another problem for fusion is the the heaviest element you can form is iron.In order for the heavier elements to be created in the sun there must be seed atoms of the iron and heavier elements for the sun to add to. These seed atoms must come the explosion of other stars and is an even a more remote possibility than the fusion process already described.
      If you were to make a model of our solar system (to the outer edge of the Ort ring) the size of the Earth, you would need less than 200 grams of mater to make the model and its radius would represent 3 light days.If all the mater was on the surface of the sphere and the sun exploded propelling it into space our closes neighbor to receive this mater is 3 light years away. The area of the sphere holding the mater has increased by a factor of 365^2. If the size of Andromeda is 3 light days, like our solar system, the area being hit by the mater would 2pi 9light days^2). So the mater coming from the Earth striking our nearest neighbor would 9/365^2 time the mater of our solar system. Not much. The seed atoms in our sun do not come from our nearest neighbor but from solar systems on the far side of the galaxy or even distant galaxies so the real radius of the sphere is in thousand or even hundreds of thousand light years.A minuscule amount.
      It order to form the heaviest elements by this process it must be repeated 5 times. This means in order to form uranium there must be 5 life cycles of stars.
      When you consider how many tons of heavy elements there are on the Earth, asteroids, and the solars system this production method is an impossibility.
      The fission process is not likely either. When you consider the half life of U235 is .704 billion years and the age of the sun is 4.6 billion years the amount of U235 remaining in the sun today is 1/2^6.4 that when the sun was formed. To me this isn’t reasonable alternative.
      If you wish to see my wild theory you should go to my PSI post HOW IT ALL WORKS where I start by wondering how a nucleus can emit a beta particle (an electron that would help bind protons together) with enough energy to overcome the attraction between the electron and the protons in the nucleus, pass through the repelling force of the electrons around the atom and end up with a stable nucleus with a stronger binding force holding more protons in the nucleus.I then progress to why the sun burns backwards.
      Jerry, I have asked other people but gotten no reply so maybe you can give a reasonable explanation for why there is a high tide on their side of the Earth, opposite the moon. If you use vectors to represent the force of gravity the far side has the largest vector pointing to the center of the Earth, so why would water move away from the Earth?
      Have a good day,
      Herb
      
      Reply
      - jerry krause
        
        October 22, 2018 at 10:32 pm | #
        
        Hi Herb,
        
        Did the hydrogen fusion bomb work as designed and constructed?
        
        Have a good day, Jerry
      - Herb Rose
        
        October 23, 2018 at 1:19 am | #
        
        Hi Jerry,
        Your comment on the hydrogen bomb may be the solution on what powers the sun. In the first hydrogen bombs a fission bombs used to compress the material causing fusion and releasing more energy. The sun probably uses a combination of fission and fusion to produce energy. A helium atom is split into two deuterium atoms releasing the binding energy of the atom. Part of that energy is then used to compress two deuterium atoms into a helium atom releasing more energy and producing more helium to repeat the process.
        It’s a good thing that that pesky rule about conservation of energy was repealed so we can get energy from both the destruction of a nucleus and the creation of a nucleus.
        Have a good day,
        Herb
jerry krause

October 22, 2018 at 4:57 pm | #

Hi Professor Rao,

Am I confused when I consider that the ‘energy’ of stars (our sun) is due to nuclear fusion reactions and not nuclear fission reactions?

Have a good day, Jerry

Reply
M. A. Padmanabha Rao

October 23, 2018 at 5:40 am | #

You are not confused. Fusion has created much of CONFUSION in the minds of scientists for nearly a century. What you said is the traditional wisdom: ‘energy’ of stars (our sun) is due to nuclear fusion reactions and not nuclear fission reactions. What you raised is the most important topic in astrophysics. Astrophysicists do not realize it as a puzzling issue. They still sure of fusion taking place in Sun and stars. Papers are being published in high Impact -Factor journals claimimg Sun has Helium and iron supporting the century-old fusion theory.

DEFINITE EVIDENCES ON FISSION TAKING PLACE IN SUN AND STARS
1. In 2013, I have reported that 235-uranium fission causing Sunlight.
Ref: M.A.Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Self ¬Sustained 235¬U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR¬JAP), Volume 4, Issue 2 (Jul. – Aug. 2013), PP 06¬24,
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue2/B0420624.pdf

In researchgate, I have posted an article on 235-uranium fission taking place in collision of neutron stars:
Ref: Discovery Of 235-uranium Fission Taking Place In Collision Of Neutron Stars Cause Gravitational Waves And Electromagnetic Radiations, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323725812_Discovery_Of_235-uranium_Fission_Taking_Place_In_Collision_Of_Neutron_Stars_Cause_Gravitational_Waves_And_Electromagnetic_Radiations
No evidence of Fe or He-II in solar spectrum, so no fusion on Sun Astrophysics relies on the theory of fusion, evolved in an era, when existence of neutron is not known. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Padmanabha_Rao2/research
I quote the words from the article: ‘It is good news even for the Current Indian Scientific Discoverer, M.A.Padmanabha Rao.It is because Supernova, AT2018cow adds to the list of cosmic objects including Sun (IOSR-JAP, 2013), collision of neutron stars (refer: researchgate, 2018) and black hole’. ‘Rao went against consensus science by pinpointing that our Sun does not have hydrogen and helium, since 153 solar lines are found to have been caused by gamma beta characteristic X-ray energies from 235-U fission products’.
Ref. URANIUM FISSION TAKES PLACE IN SUPERNOVA, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326008873_URANIUM_FISSION_TAKES_PLACE_IN_SUPERNOVA
COSMIC RAYS MYSTERY RESOLVED AND UNFOLDING 235^URANIUM FISSION IN ETA CARINAE, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326207801_COSMIC_RAYS_MYSTERY_RESOLVED_AND_UNFOLDING_235URANIUM_FISSION_IN_ETA_CARINAE
Electrons, protons and atomic nuclei are referred as Cosmic rays in the article.
MY COMMENT: ‘Electrons, protons and atomic nuclei’ are just part of the cosmic rays. Fusion of hydrogen into helium suggests release of electrons, protons and atomic nuclei. The fusion theory is outdated.

THE MAIN CONSTITUENTS OF COSMIC RAYS are gamma rays and X-rays that reach earth easily in comparison to beta particles (electrons). Most gamma rays and X-rays that are detected on earth are from fission taking place on Sun. In 2018, I have reported in PSI and researchgate that 235^Uranium fission takes place in the collision of neutron stars, and Supernova. However, the above two sources contribute gamma rays and X-rays to a lesser extent. Definite evidence on dominance of gamma rays and X-rays as cosmic rays comes from the enormous counts detected, called ‘background by Scintillation Detector using NaI (Tl) crystal used in nuclear medicine and nuclear physics laboratories.

Conclusion: Revolutionary breakthrough in Astrophysics.
I have explained fission takes place in Sun, in collision of neutron stars, Supernova, and ETA CARINAE. In clear words, detection of X-rays, gamma rays, EUV, UV, blue light or, and red light from any cosmic source strongly suggest 235-Uranium fission taking place. Conclusively, my research strongly suggests fission takes place in Sun, stars and many cosmic objects

Reply
- Jason
  
  October 24, 2018 at 10:26 am | #
  
  Does this mean it may be possible by means of Superluminal propagation to send information backward in time?
  
  Reply
  - Herb Rose
    
    October 24, 2018 at 10:44 am | #
    
    Hi Jason,
    The answer to your questions no. The idea of time slowing and going back in time is a product of Einstein’s E=mc^2 which is wrong. E = V^2 and that is the unit for energy. You cannot separate out time anymore than you can determine the weight of a six inch bolt from the tongue used to apply it.
    Have a good day,
    Herb
    
    Reply
  - M. A. Padmanabha Rao
    
    October 26, 2018 at 7:29 am | #
    
    Please peruse the first example in my article on comparison of distance travelled by beta particles from tritium and 32-Phosphorus. The beta from tritium with 18.6 keV energy could reach just 6 mm in air, while 1.7 MeV beta from 32-P could reach more distance 20 ft in air.
    
    In Fig.2 I have shown solar X-rays reached 16 km more distance towards earth as compared to Bharat Radiation with 12.87 to 31 nm. Bharat Radiation is generated by gamma, beta or X-ray emission within the same excited atom of a radioisotope or X-ray source.
    I have provided simple examples showing higher energy reach more distance according to my formula E =V^2. Therefore, your view, Superluminal propagation to send information backward in time is not true.
    
    Reply
jerry krause

October 23, 2018 at 2:58 pm | #

Hi Professor Rao,

I don’t know much but I do read and ponder so I claim to know a little. You wrote: MY COMMENT: ‘Electrons, protons and atomic nuclei’ are just part of the cosmic rays. Fusion of hydrogen into helium suggests release of electrons, protons and atomic nuclei. The fusion theory is outdated.”

What you fail to mention is the solar radiation (photons) produced by the sun and stars. It seems we can simply explain the spectra of this radiation to be the result of the high temperature of the matter (electrons, protons, and atomic nuclei) which compose the sun and stars and emit this radiation due to the temperature of the sun’s matter.

I have experiences that cause me to conclude that too many physicists do not know much of what chemists know. We know there is ‘ionizing radiation’ which when absorbed by ‘atoms’ cause the electrons to ‘fly away’ from the nucleus. Which in the case of hydrogen produces the particles protons and electrons independent of each other. So I can easily image that there are no hydrogen molecules, no hydrogen atoms, no helium atoms in the sun or stars. Only protons, electrons, helium nuclei, and possibly other nuclei of fusion products.

You wrote: “THE MAIN CONSTITUENTS OF COSMIC RAYS are gamma rays and X-rays that reach earth easily in comparison to beta particles (electrons).” What do you consider the ‘solar wind’ is? Of what do you consider the aurora phenomena are the result?

I consider the solar wind is protons and electrons which should attract each other and form hydrogen atoms but do not because of the ionizing radiation being emitted from the sun quickly ionizes any hydrogen atom which might be formed.

Just a little which I believe I simply understand. And I can understand why the velocity of protons and electrons (particles with a rest mass) is not that of radiation (which has no rest mass). Plus the fact they are being decelerated by the sun’s gravity.

Have a good day, Jerry

Reply
- M. A. Padmanabha Rao
  
  October 26, 2018 at 8:04 am | #
  
  Dear Mr Jerry Krause, You said, ‘What you fail to mention is the solar radiation (photons) produced by the sun and stars’.
  My reply: Solar radiations are: gamma, beta, characteristic X-rays, followed by Bharat radiation (12.87 to 31 nm), followed by Extre UV (EUV), UV, visible light and near infrared radiation. I have reported in researchgate that 235-Uranium fission takes place in collision of neutron stars. All these radiations are expected to be the same from Sun and these neutron stars since fission takes place in both the cases. However, with the instruments use, they could detect gammarays, UV , blue light and red light.
  
  You said, “It seems we can simply explain the spectra of this radiation to be the result of the high temperature of the matter (electrons, protons, and atomic nuclei) which compose the sun and stars and emit this radiation due to the temperature of the sun’s matter”.
  My reply: What you said happens in familiar atomic spectra of an element when subjected to high temperatures. What happens in Sun and collision of neutron stars is fission, which causes high temperatures during fission because of the release of near- infrared radiation. The gamma , beta and X-ray emissions cause a new class of atomic spectra generated by valence excitation by Bharat Radiation. I have shown for the first time, a previously unknown energy/Bharat radiation excites valence electron and causes EUV, UV, visible light and near infrared radiation.
  THE FOLLOWING PAPER CLAIMS SIX FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS DISCOVERIES.
  M.A.Padmanabha Rao,
  UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources,
  Braz. J. Phy., 40, no 1, 38¬46, 2010.
  http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332010000100007
  .
  DETAILS OF THESE SIX FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS DISCOVERIES
  Bharat radiation and UV dominant optical radiation emissions discovered from radioisotopes and XRF (X-ray fluorescent) sources,
  Discovery, Volume 4, Number 10, April 2013 http://www.discoveryjournals.org/discovery/current_issue/v4/n10/A2.pdf?
  
  You said, So I can easily image that there are no hydrogen molecules, no hydrogen atoms, no helium atoms in the sun or stars. Only protons, electrons, helium nuclei, and possibly other nuclei of fusion products.
  My reply:
  Yes, there are no hydrogen molecules, no hydrogen atoms, no helium atoms in the sun or stars.
  NO protons, electrons, helium nuclei,
  Yes, fusion products (ions with some orbital electrons) present in solar flare. They emit solar radiations mentioned by me above.
  
  you said, What do you consider the ‘solar wind’ is? Of what do you consider the aurora phenomena are the result?
  My reply: Solar wind is nothing but solar flare that looks like a cloud, which constitutes purely fission products.
  
  You also asked about , What do you consider the ‘solar wind’ is? Of what do you consider the aurora phenomena are the result?
  My reply: Probably, there is no explanation for the aurora, so far.
  In my article in PSI, I have shown low energy solar beta, gamma and X-ray emissions get attracted towards North Pole and South Pole. And also possible for low energy emitting fission products to get attracted by earth’s gravitational force, termed Vemuluru Effect. These ionizing radiations while passing through Coulomb space within the same atom, or other atoms, Bharat radiation 912.87 to 31 nm) is generated, which inturn p
  
  Reply
M. A. Padmanabha Rao

October 26, 2018 at 8:15 am | #

Dear Mr Jerry Krause, You said, ‘What you fail to mention is the solar radiation (photons) produced by the sun and stars’.
My reply: Solar radiations are: gamma, beta, characteristic X-rays, followed by Bharat radiation (12.87 to 31 nm), followed by Extre UV (EUV), UV, visible light and near infrared radiation. I have reported in researchgate that 235-Uranium fission takes place in collision of neutron stars. All these radiations are expected to be the same from Sun and these neutron stars since fission takes place in both the cases. However, with the instruments use, they could detect gammarays, UV , blue light and red light.

You said, “It seems we can simply explain the spectra of this radiation to be the result of the high temperature of the matter (electrons, protons, and atomic nuclei) which compose the sun and stars and emit this radiation due to the temperature of the sun’s matter”.
My reply: What you said happens in familiar atomic spectra of an element when subjected to high temperatures. What happens in Sun and collision of neutron stars is fission, which causes high temperatures during fission because of the release of near- infrared radiation. The gamma , beta and X-ray emissions cause a new class of atomic spectra generated by valence excitation by Bharat Radiation. I have shown for the first time, a previously unknown energy/Bharat radiation excites valence electron and causes EUV, UV, visible light and near infrared radiation.
THE FOLLOWING PAPER CLAIMS SIX FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS DISCOVERIES.
M.A.Padmanabha Rao,
UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources,
Braz. J. Phy., 40, no 1, 38¬46, 2010.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-97332010000100007
.
DETAILS OF THESE SIX FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS DISCOVERIES
Bharat radiation and UV dominant optical radiation emissions discovered from radioisotopes and XRF (X-ray fluorescent) sources,
Discovery, Volume 4, Number 10, April 2013 http://www.discoveryjournals.org/discovery/current_issue/v4/n10/A2.pdf?

You said, So I can easily image that there are no hydrogen molecules, no hydrogen atoms, no helium atoms in the sun or stars. Only protons, electrons, helium nuclei, and possibly other nuclei of fusion products.
My reply:
Yes, there are no hydrogen molecules, no hydrogen atoms, no helium atoms in the sun or stars.
NO protons, electrons, helium nuclei,
Yes, fusion products (ions with some orbital electrons) present in solar flare. They emit solar radiations mentioned by me above.

you said, What do you consider the ‘solar wind’ is? Of what do you consider the aurora phenomena are the result?
My reply: Solar wind is nothing but solar flare that looks like a cloud, which constitutes purely fission products.

You also asked about , What do you consider the ‘solar wind’ is? Of what do you consider the aurora phenomena are the result?
My reply: Probably, there is no explanation for the Aurora, so far.
In my article in PSI, I have shown low energy solar beta, gamma and X-ray emissions get attracted towards the North Pole and the South Pole. And also possible for low energy emitting fission products to get attracted by earth’s gravitational force, termed Vemuluru Effect. These ionizing radiations while passing through Coulomb space within the same atom, or other atoms, Bharat radiation 912.87 to 31 nm) is generated, which in turn produces EUV, UV, visible light (violet, blue, green and red) and near-infrared radiation. Mostly the EUV causes freezing temperatures at the Poles, though the dominant UV also contributes in lowering the temperatures. What one can see visually is the visible spectrum, violet, blue, green, yellow and red. You may ask again why green and red colours are often seen in Auroras. It also depends what gamma, beta, and X-ray energies are present in the sky at that time. I have already explained each wavelength has a specific velocity. Some colours also may combine and project as two colours in Aurora.

Reply