The correctness of this statement emphasizes the incorrectness of the 3 other statements.

From: uitterdijk <sjaakenlutske@hetnet.nl> Subject: Potential energy Dear physicist, While developing a digital model for orbiting objects I once again experienced the problem with the conventional definition of potential energy. The first time was when I was writing the article: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0225v5.pdf ‘Why a Photon is not a Particle’.  It now turned out that the problem still hadn’t been solved. In the present version 5 the problem is definitively solved.  Applying the alternative definition of potential energy in the presented photon model, this model now shows that the magnetic energy in an atom (with one electron) equals the kinetic energy of this electron.  And it shows that this magnetic energy eventually is the source that delivers the energy of the photon. The fundamental problem of the conventional definition of potential energy is indirectly but clearly shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital I scratched out the wrong words and wrote the correct ones behind them in italics. Orbital energy In atoms with a single electron ......., the energy of an orbital ...... is determined exclusively by n.  The n=1 orbital has the lowest highest possible energy in the atom.  Each successively higher value of n has a higher lower level of energy, but the difference decreases as n increases *.  For high n, the level of energy becomes so high low that the electron can easily escape from the atom. *          The Rydberg expression is meant here: E = hf = hc * R∞ * (1/n12 - 1/n12) Example:                         n1                     n2             (1/n12 - 1/n12)                         1                      2                      0,75                         5                      6                      0,012                         10                   11                     0,0017 The example above shows the correctness of the statement: “......but the difference decreases as n increases”.  The correctness of this statement emphasizes the incorrectness of the 3 other statements. If even such an obviously wrong description of such a simple phenomenon determines the thoughts about a fundamental property of an atom, what, for god’s-sake, might have happened more in physical science? In http://vixra.org/pdf/1709.0440v1.pdf and in the attachment you will find the background for the recovery of this fundamental mistake by means of a much more direct and common sense definition of potential energy. Kind regards,  Sjaak Uitterdijk