I am disappointed that Physica Scripta has withdrawn my paper from consideration after receiving a response from only one referee. That referee observed that I state in my concluding remarks that the analysis should be taken as only a plausibilty argument, and therefore it should not be published on that grounds alone.
I want to say that although I do consider that paper to be only a preliminary analysis, and that there are relativistic effects omitted that could negate it (which is why I say it is only a plausibilty argument) it is nonetheless a quantitative argument that both the magnetic and strong forces are direct consequences of the Thomas precession. As such I believe it is of sufficient interest to warrant publication in its own right, or at least review.
That said, I'm not entirely upset because it was just my first attempt, and the next will be much more relativistically precise.
I'd hoped to have it done by now, but it is dragging out.
Another reason I'm not so upset is that there's a misconception in the current arxiv versions (v1 and v2) that I can now correct prior to publication. It surprised me that in order to be able to equate the magnetic force with the anti-Coriolis force of the Thomas precession I had to assume a bound system. I now realize that by not including explicitly the Euler force, I was inadvertently restricting the application of the analysis to a circular orbit. In the posted versions I mention that the Euler force should be taken into account, but then for no good reason I considered cases where it can't be neglected, without including it. Including it turns out to complicate things considerably though so I may in the next installment simply restrict the analysis to the circular orbit case. There is still a lot of interest in this case, including to show that the magnetic force and the anti-Coriolis force of the Thomas precession can be equated in two-particle classical electrodynamics to at least order (v/c)^4.
Readers’ wildlife photos
53 minutes ago