The true fundamental physics

as it could and should had been done already before the end of the 19 th century

Newton’s [1]corpuscular theory of light was abandoned after Young’s ( [2]Thomas Young ) experiment:
[3]
https://www.britannica.com/science/Youngs-experiment
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_interference_experiment

Young was also the first to measure the wavelengths and frequencies of different colors of light, already
in 1802:
[5]
https://books.google.rs/books?id=sKx0IBC22p4C&pg=PA30&dq="the+wavelength+of+light"#v=onepage&q="the
%20wavelength%20of%20light"&f=false (See page 31) (Please read at least 3 pages).
And, that was regarded as “the definite proof” that the light is … the wavy motion of hypothetical
“ultra-fine fluid” called [6]Luminiferous aether.

After reading e.g. this: [7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#History (read it all, or at least

the subsection Kirchhoff), it is clear that it was also known that light carries energy.

Some scientists did assume that light could be electromagnetic phenomenon, but nobody had any
model, any equation, which directly relates some electric/magnetic phenomenon with some
property/behavior/manifestation of light.

In 1864, J.C. Maxwell had published his book „A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic field“
[9]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field/Part_I
where he had presented the first strong indication that the light is electromagnetic phenomenon:
[10]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field/Part_VI
“… the results seems to show … that light is an electromagnetic disturbance propagated through the
field according to electromagnetic laws.“

Maxwell bases that statement:

- on the derivation of the wave equations for electric and magnetic fields, and these equations show
that the propagation speed of variations of electric and magnetic field is
k 1 (at that time, it was still used the [11]Coulomb’s constant . The fundamental
V  
4  physical phenomenon  was extracted a few years later)
- and on the fact that the experimentally determined values of the speed of light match the speeds
obtained by putting in the propagation-speed-equation the values of  and  of the medium through
which light propagates.

 is the lengthwise capacitance (a.k.a. [16]electric permittivity) of a medium

 is the lengthwise inductance (a.k.a. [17]magnetic permeability) of a medium
   0 1   e     0 1   m 
 0 is the lengthwise capacitance of the [18]vacuum.  0 is the lengthwise inductance of the [18]vacuum.
e is electric susceptibility of a medium.  m is magnetic susceptibility of a medium.

1|Page
[ But nobody considered  e and  m as the measure of the influence of the presence of matter
on  0 and on  0 . Maybe because it is something too obvious, and unnecessary to mention? Or
nobody thought that way?
It will be shown (later) that the “trivial” interpretation: „the measure of the influence of the
presence of matter on 0 and on 0 “, is the most important, the essential, way to interpret
the dimensionless numbers  e and  m . ]

And so, it became clear that, essentially, optics is electromagnetics.

Let us briefly recall the basics of light-refraction: [19]https://www.wikilectures.eu/w/Optical_media
[20] [21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

V0 0 V0 
1
, V1 
1
, V2 
1
V1 1 1  0 0 11  2 2
V0  V1  V2
V2
2  0  1   2
In 1864, it was also known how would light propagate through a medium with a smoothly continually
varying refractive index, that is, it was known that the light-path through such medium would also be a
smoothly continually bending path. So: there would be no refraction (fracture, brake), but the smoothly
continual bending. [22]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle
[23]
http://astrowww.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/goptics/geomop1.pdf (page 32)
As we will see, even in the case shown in the picture above, there is no refraction, but sudden/fast smoothly
continual bending of the light-path on the borders. The reason for that should be clear after you have read this
whole manuscript. Simply said: nature does not allow changes “in no time”, or: the time derivative cannot be
undefined (infinite), nor ambiguous (it cannot have one value before and some other value immediately “after”,
what would be the case if the path is broken (the break/fracture is regarded to last 0 seconds. It is mathematically
possible, but in reality that is not possible. Everything what
happens, happens in time)).

The light bends towards the direction in which

refractive index increases.
And according to that what Maxwell has discovered,
the light, essentially and actually, bends towards the direction in which  and  increase (or: away
from the direction in which  and  decrease).
So, the essential cause of the smoothly continual bending of light is the smoothly continual change of 
and  .  and  determine how fast light moves. They determine the motion of light.
Nobody knows how exactly (nobody knows “the inner details” of that), but, what 19th-century physicists
did discover (did find out), is that  and  do determine the motion of light.

Assumption that light-path also bends in gravitational field, and that it bends towards the source of
gravitation, has a long history, too:
[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#History
“Henry Cavendish in 1784 (in an unpublished manuscript) and Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801 (published in

2|Page
1804) had pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will bend around a massive object[12] as had
already been supposed by Isaac Newton in 1704 in his Queries No.1 in his book Opticks.[13]”

And, if the light would bend towards the source of gravitation,

then
– according to the knowledge about light-path bending, which was already available long before 1864,
– and according to that what Maxwell has discovered in 1864,
– and according to the [25]Rule II in Newton’s “Rules of reasoning in philosophy” (and I would call them
Rules of healthy/sane reasoning – I recommend that you read them all and think about them):
“To the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes”,
the space around the source of gravitation should be the space in which  and  smoothly
continually decrease with the distance from the source of gravitation.
“But, that is outside of a body! In the vacuum! And there we have  0 and  0 , and they are constants!”
Are they? We have more than enough reasons to investigate if they are, perhaps, „almost constants“.

„That gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at
a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or
force may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who
has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be
caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or
immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.“ – [26]Isaac Newton

So, we shall investigate if, perhaps, this agent is actually agents:  and  . They determine the velocity.
Their change is the change of velocity, and the change of velocity is acceleration. Gravitational
acceleration.

Knowing this:

a) "Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another; and may not bodies receive
much of their activity from the particles of light which enter into their composition? The
changing of bodies into light, and light into bodies, is very conformable to the course of Nature,
which seems delighted with transmutations." – Isaac Newton
[27]
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-02/8-02.htm

b) [28]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Kinetic_theory
see e.g. the subsections:
- Kelvin and Tait (vortex nature of matter),
- Maxwell (he was well introduced with all what was theorized about what matter could
be, and about gravitation, and, of course, he had also his own ideas about all that ...)

c) [29]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#History

one can easily see that Maxwell (and/or any other physicist who worked and lived then (Kelvin, Tait,
[30]
Urban Le Vernier, ...)) already had at their disposal all what was needed to suppose (to assume) that,
perhaps, the basic constituents of matter are, essentially, the whirls of light.

3|Page
It was known that one could make the light to propagate as a straight line beam:
And people knew how to make rather narrow beams of
light (using lenses and curved mirrors).

And, they also knew that the velocity of light is finite.

So, if one would be able to turn it on and off sufficiently
fast, the narrow light beam could be like this:

How short could a light beam be? That is, how short could a light wave be? How short could be a wave?

Soliton is observed already in 1834:

[31]
https://www.google.com/search?q=soliton%2C+history
[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton
"A soliton or solitary wave is a self-reinforcing wave packet that maintains its shape while it propagates
at a constant velocity”.
But, the most fundamental soliton is not a “wave packet”, but the solitary wave, which looks just like
this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton#History
"... the form of a large solitary elevation, a rounded, smooth
and well-defined heap of water, which continued its course
along the channel apparently without change of form or
diminution of speed." (John Scott Russell (year: 1834.))

dE
Self-reinforcing? They knew that force is F  , and:
ds
- if the change of energy dE is positive dE  0 in the direction of ds (that is: if the energy increases in
the direction ds ), then the force acts in the direction of ds ,
- if the change of energy dE is negative dE  0 in the direction of ds (that is: if the energy decreases
in the direction ds ), then the force acts in the direction which is opposite to the direction of ds .

So, looking at the soliton, it smoothly continually starts to increase, then smoothly continually increases,
then smoothly continually stops to increase, and then smoothly continually starts to decrease, then
smoothly continually decreases, and smoothly continually stops to decrease. Perfect continuity.

For the kind of thinking which will be presented now, scientists were definitely able even before Henry
Poincare [who was the first to propose, in his paper which he wrote in 1900: "Nous pouvons regarder
l’énergie électromagnétique comme un fluide fictif dont la densité est ...",
that is: “We can look at electromagnetic energy as a fictional fluid whose density is …”.]
because, in thermodynamics, they have already treated e.g. the heat, that is, the thermal energy, as a
“fictional fluid” (which flows from one body to another).

And:
if energy of light-soliton would be considered as vis viva (essential living force)

– there is no light which does not move, and – actually – it moves extremely fast, and energy-
soliton which moves is the change of energy along the path it propagates, that is: the force,

4|Page
 – life on Earth is driven by the light from Sun, the light of Sun is necessary for almost all living
things.
– and read again this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#History subsection
Newton: matter and light, and subsection Swedenborg: matter composed of "pure and total
motion" – you should be able to see that one could refine and correct
- the Swedenborg’s totally abstract (actually: empty) idea of “pure and total motion”
- and Newton’s idea that light is made of tiny particles
with the light-solitons.
Are they rigid? If they are fluid, then they can’t be. And since they are inherently self-
reinforcing entities, they are stable (and elastic) entities.

and if the energy of light, EM-energy, would be considered not just as some abstract quantity, nor as a
“fictional fluid”, but as a fundamental quality, a real fluid (not material, but ghostly, genuine, essential,
perfect fluid, the only true fluid which exists), which constitutes the light-soliton,
that is,
if the light-soliton is the energy-soliton, the energy whose spatial distribution has the shape of a soliton,
then self-reinforcing would be something what is immanent/innate/inherent to such energy
distribution. Namely:
if we have distributed energy along some direction, whose amount varies in the way which in graphical
presentation of that variation looks like a profile of a soliton, then each infinitesimal change of energy
dE along each infinitesimal part ds of a line which goes through that soliton, is the force dE/ds, and
which is inherently oriented towards the center of the soliton (except outside of a soliton, and in the
middle of the soliton, where dE/ds = 0).

They also knew about Newton’s Query 28: “Are not all Hypotheses erroneous in which Light is supposed
to consist of Pression or Motion propagated through a fluid medium?”
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-02/8-02.htm (search with the text-search-tool for „Query“)

So, it was quite possible that, if not all, but at least some of the 19th-century-physicists assume that,
perhaps,
- the agents  and  are immaterial phenomena, just like the space is.  and  can be regarded as
electromagnetic properties of the very space. (Actually, they are immaterial electromagnetic
properties of the very 3D-emptiness which we call space. There is absolutely no need to
assume/invent/”anticipate” any other, any additional thing/phenomenon (e.g. aether)).
- the light-soliton is a phenomenon which is the energy, whose essential quality is energy, the energy in
its most essential way of manifestation, which has the form of a tiny droplet:
A droplet of e.g. water which drops, has the shape of a sphere. And that is because of its homogeneity
and because of cohesive forces among its molecules.

A droplet of energy is inherently cohesive, that is, inherently self-reinforcing, and it is the perfect fluid,
so it would definitely take/form the shape of a sphere.
The sphere is the simplest 3D object. The light-soliton is the most basic, the simplest entity in universe.
And which has the simplest possible 3D shape: the shape of a sphere, within which, along any direction,
the distribution of EM-energy density is like the smoothly continual heap/bump.
E.g. along the direction which goes

5|Page
 through the center, near the center, farther from the center,
it is like this: it is like this: it is like this:

And Maxwell’s intention was to unify physics on electromagnetic-bases, and this would be the most
 ds  1
fundamental basing of such an attempt. His newly discovered equation V     actually
 dt  EM 
explicitly reveals the connection of the first four most fundamental and inseparable phenomena:
time, space,  and  .
And light-soliton would be the droplet of electromagnetic energy, the basic/fundamental element,
whose motion is determined by  and  , and which is the basic constituent of everything else what
exists in time-space-- continuum.
“The great desideratum for any science is its reduction to the smallest number of dominating
principles.” ― Sir Joseph Larmor

Time-space-- continuum and light-soliton – perfect candidates for the fundaments of fundamental
physics.

So, we assume that light is energy. It was known that matter has mass.
Ever since [30]Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz introduced his vis viva, it was known that the ratio of energy
and mass is proportional to the squared velocity.
In the meantime, energy became broadly recognized as the fundamental phenomenon, and almost all of
their kinds were already known: kinetic energy, ‘potential’ energy, thermal energy (i.e. kinetic energy of
particles of which gases, liquids and solids are made of), energy of electric current, of electric field, of
magnetic field.
The energy conservation law, and the mass conservation law, were already established/accepted as
inviolable fundamental principles of nature. And, these are, actually, the facts. Comprehensible to any
sane person. Creation ex nihilo is impossible, and annihilation (turning something into nothing) is
impossible. It is only possible to believe in that, and those who believe in that, and who are adult and
educated people, are not sane.
The velocity of light was known, and it was known that the velocity of light in vacuum is the greatest
velocity of light.
So, it was not hard to come to the idea to relate the ratio of the energy of light which „a gross body“
would convert into, and the mass of that „gross body“, to the square of – which velocity? Well, it was
2
not hard to choose the reference: the maximal possible velocity of light Vmax :

6|Page
 E
 k  Vmax
2

m
Due to the energy conservation law, and to the mass conservation law (which the top-scientists of that
time have realized and understood properly: as inviolable fundamental principles of nature), the k
would have to be some constant number (and which would have to be discovered/determined through
further theoretical and experimental investigations).

See Appendix 1 (Spherical Light Soliton) (page 20)

See Appendix 2 (Two-Light-Solitons Whirl) (page 31)

1 EM 1 EM

   min e and    min e

K F  r K F  r
So, we’ve got

Now, let us apply the Maxwell’s discovery V  1 :


1 EM 1 EM
 
1 1 1
V     Vmax e
K F  r K F  r
e
 2
1 EM
 min  min
 min  min e
K F  r

So, the velocity of light in the space around some gross body whose mass is M would be:
EM 1

V r   Vmax e , where Vmax  V r 
K F  r

The change of V r  in the radial direction is:

EM 1

dV r   M 2 Vmax e  F  dr
E 1 K r

K F  r

Very, very, very far from any source of gravitation, the change dV r  is 0 (there is no change of
velocity), and the infinitesimal distance which a light-soliton would pass is:
Vmax dt  dr
EM 1

dV r  
EM 1
V e  F   Vmax dt
K r
2 max
K F  r

2
And, when we replace EM with kVmax M , we get:
EM 1 EM 1
kV 2 M 1 2  K F  r 4
M  K F  r
dV r   max dt  ar dt
kVmax
Vmax e dt  e
K F  r 2 K F r 2

7|Page
 M
We know that gravitational acceleration is: G
r2
EM 1
4
M  K F  r
And that what we’ve derived is: ar  
kVmax
e
K F  r 2
EM 1
4 
kVmax
e F   G
K r
So, it seems that it should be that:
K F 
But, if G is the constant, then it should be that:
EM 1 EM 1

kV 4 M 1  K F  r 4
 G , and dt r   e  F  dt
kVmax
dV r   max dt  ar dt r  
K r
e
K F  r 2  dt  r 
 K F 

a r 

So, finally, we get the following gravitational kinematic equations for light-soliton:
2
EM 1 kVmax M1 GM 1
   4
ar   G
M kVmax
V r   Vmax e 
2
 Vmax e  Vmax e
K F  r K F  r Vmax r
, where G
r2 K F 
EM 1 GM 1
 
d  dt r   e
2
dt  e
K F  r Vmax r
dt
EM 1 EM 1 EM 1 GM 1
  2 2 2
dsr   V r d  Vmax e e dt  dr  e  dr  e
K F  r K F  r K F  r Vmax r

We can calculate Vmax :

If the velocity of light, measured in some laboratory which is on the Earth’s surface, is 299792458[m/s]
(yes, I took the contemporary value, defined in 1983, but you can use the value which was determined by Leon
Foucault in 1862, or the simplest to use value: 3108 [m/s]. Any value which will be calculated later, and which
requires the value of the light speed in order to be calculated (e.g. the precession of Mercury orbit, etc.), will be
practically the same, whichever of these velocities you take.
On the other hand, the difference between
- the contemporary value 299792458[m/s], which is regarded as constant throughout the universe,
- and the value of Vmax which we are about to estimate,
has the significant consequences for everything what contemporary scientists claim about the universe today (e.g.
distances of the stars, and galaxies, … from us, the size of the visible universe, …, existence of “dark matter”, …)),
then the maximal possible velocity of light (which it would have somewhere very, very far from any
source of gravitation) would be
M Earth 1 M Earth rE . s . rE . s .
G G g
Vmax  V rE .s.   e  V rE .s.   e  V rE .s.   e
2
Vmax rE . s . rE2. s . Vmax
2 2
Vmax

 
Vmax  V rE .s.   1  g E2.s.  Vmax  V rE .s.   V rE .s. g  Vmax  V rE .s.   V rE .s. g E2.s.
r rE .s. r

 Vmax 
2
Vmax    Vmax
V

8|Page
 g  rE .s.
V  V rE .s. g   V rE .s. g 
rE .s. rE .s. 1
 
V rE.s.   V  2
 V 
2
V rE .s.   
2

V 2 rE .s. 1    

 V r   1  V 
 V rE .s.  
E . s .

  
 1 
m
9.81 2   6371000m
g  rE .s. s 
V    0.208476 [m/s]
V rE .s.  m
299792458 
s

So, Vmax is 299792458.208476[m/s]

Check:
M Earth 1 M Earth rE . s . rE . s .
G G g
V rE.s.   Vmax  e
2
rE2. s . Vmax
2 2
 Vmax  e  Vmax  e
Vmax rE . s . Vmax

m
9.81 2  6371000m 
 s 
 m2 
299792458 .2084762  2 
V rE .s.   299792458.208476 [m/s]  e  s 
 299792458.000000075182683 [m/s]

--------------------------------------------------

Wave-period is the time which is necessary that one wave (wavelength), one light-soliton, passes
through the observed point.

If – very, very far away from any source of gravitation – the period of that wave is Tl .s. seconds, then –
as that wave passes through some observed (fixed) point r in the vicinity of gravitation source whose
mass is M – the period, measured in the observed point r , will be
GM 1 GM 1
  2
l .s. r   Tl .s.  e
2 k k
 Et  Et  e Vmax (see Appendix 1, the last page, bolded paragraph)
Vmax r r

El .s. r  E l .s.
GM 1
GM 1
El .s. r   E l .s.  e
2 r

El .s. r   E l .s.  e
Vmax 2 r
Vmax
Using the equation , or equation
dEl .s. r  dEl .s. r  GM E r 
GM 1
GM 1
  2 l .s2.
2 r
  2 2 E l .s.  e Vmax
it is easy to calculate that the
dr Vmax r  dr r Vmax
El . s .  r 
relative change of energy of light which would travel vertical
dEl .s. r 
  2 2 El .s. r 
GM 1 distance of e.g. 22.5[m] starting from Earth-surface, is
dr Vmax r El .s.
 2.456  10 15 (and that is something what would,
dEl .s. r  GM E r  El . s .
  2 l .s2.
dr r Vmax later, be confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment).

9|Page
And it was known that the change of kinetic energy of some object whose mass is m in gravitational field
is:

GM
dEk   mdr
r2
dEk GM
  2 m  Fg
dr r
So, if we compare this with what we have derived so far, we see that we have derived the Newton’s law
of gravitation, and at the same time:
- we’ve confirmed the law El .s.  Tl .s.  k Et ,
- and we’ve determined that k in our starting assumption that the ratio of energy of light E into which
E
some gross body whose mass is m would convert into,  k  Vmax , is: k  1 , that is: E  m  Vmax
2
.
m

So, here is, essentially, how gravitation works:

We had this picture on page 2, which shows how light-

path bends in the space with the continually varying 
and  (continually increasing towards the bottom of the
picture).
Why does the path of a single light-soliton bends?
Well, any self-reinforcing entity (or: any entity whose shape/form is stable), and whose interaction
with something upon what / through what the entity moves is such that that interaction makes that
e.g. the left side of the entity moves faster than its right side, then that entity will go along a path
which turns/bends to the right.

In order to see what happens with the two light solitons which whirl one around the other, in the space
with the continually varying  and  (continually increasing towards the bottom of the picture), take the
transparent paper, print on it the paths of two light solitons, and wrap the transparent paper sheets
around a cylindrical object, as shown in the next picture:

Transparent paper sheet

Thin cylinder

Attach the paper sheets to the

cylinder, and wrap them around it

10 | P a g e
Yes, this is the case when we have horizontal whirl:
Indigo-dashed line is the horizontal circle, black arrow represents the light soliton
which is on the side of the circle near to us, and green arrow represents the light
soliton on the other side of the circle. Thin curved arrows show the influence of the
outer/external  and .

But, also if we’d have the vertical whirl, it is not hard to show that it would also go down, that is,
towards the direction in which external  and  increase (curved gray-arrows show the influence of the 
and ):

The 19th-century-physicists could had derived all what is derived in this manuscript also in the following
way:

Namely, at the beginning of the derivations presented in this manuscript (see the last paragraph on page
E
6 and first paragraph on page 7), we could had used the assumption  k  Vmax
2
to immediately
m
express the Newton’s law of gravitation in terms of energy which that mass could convert into:

M m G 2
MkVmax  mkVmax
2
G EM  Em
F G   2 4
r 2
k  Vmax
2 4
r 2
k  Vmax r2

k 2  Vmax
4
E E
F  M  m
G r r

k 2 Vmax
4
Obviously, the term has the dimension of force. We shall denote it with Fmax , because k and
G
G are constants, and Vmax is the upper limit for velocity of light.

EM Em F 1 EM 1 Em
Fmax F   , that is:  
r r Fmax Fmax r Fmax r

Considering that we’ve got it from the law of gravitation, that is, from the law which states that in the
1 Em
presence of two gross bodies there exists the attraction among them, then the term , which is
Fmax r
the pure number (just like  e and  m are), is an obvious essential measure of presence of matter.

11 | P a g e
So, further, it could/should had been assumed that elementary particles which constitute a gross body,
affect  and  in the following way:

 1 Em   1 Em 
   min 1      min 1  
 Fmax r   Fmax r 

where  min   r  , and  min   r 

And, obviously, they would then immediately have the approximation of the distribution of  and  from
which they could derive the Newton’s law of gravitation.
And, on the other side, they could had noticed that such distribution of  and  , for very small values of
r, would produce such distribution of allowed light-velocity which is obviously the distribution which one
has when something circles/whirls:

 1 Em  r  1 Em  1 Em  r  1 Em
   min 1     min    min 1     min
 Fmax r  Fmax r  Fmax r  Fmax r

1 1 1 Fmax V F
Vl .s. (r )     r  max max  r
 1 Em 1 Em  min  min Em Em
 min   min
Fmax r Fmax r

And then, that should lead them to the logical assumption that matter is made of light-whirls.

F 1 EM 1 Em
That what this form of Newton’s law of gravitation: 1  
Fmax Fmax r Fmax r

reveals and dismantles, is the almost 300 years old blunder, which prevented scientists to think properly
about the Newton’s law of gravitation from the very beginning. Namely, that blunder has started its life
even before Newton used it to formulate the law of gravitation. That blunder is known as “the inverse
square law”, and which was regarded as some fundamental principle.
And, actually, it is not: the inverse square is the consequence, the result of the simplest convolution*
1 EM 1 Em
(the product) of the terms: and
Fmax r Fmax r

and which arise as the result of confrontation of two high energy light-solitons which form the stable
whirl. And, the most rational way to name these terms is:
they are the essential measure of presence of an energy whirl (elementary matter). And which
influences  and  in the way which was already presented.

12 | P a g e
 * Let me just shortly remind you of the convolution in frequency domain (which, as we have
found out, essentially is the energy domain):
1  O   H   I   , where:
1 is the so called Dirac’s pulse,
O  is the normalized output
H   is the so called transfer/throughput function (normalized pulse response)
I   is the normalized input
F 1 EM 1 Em
1  
Fmax Fmax r Fmax r

 and  are the electromagnetic properties of time-and-space. And of nothing else. They are the
electromagnetic behavior, the electromagnetic nature of time-and-space. They are immaterial, just like
the time and space are. Maybe the best way to apprehend their relation is that
dt
the time(NOW) in elementary space is the geometric mean of  and  :  
ds
The lengthwise capacitance  and the lengthwise inductance  are behaviors of time and space in the
presence of elementary energy. They are immaterial binders of time, space, and elementary energy.
And, as it was clearly presented, there is absolutely no need for any other fundamental phenomenon in
order to explain the universe. All other phenomena are derivable from time, space,  and , and
elementary energy-solitons.

The terms 1 EM and 1 E m also reveal that, beside the maximal possible velocity in nature Vmax ,
Fmax r Fmax r
4
Vmax
there exists another essential limit: the maximal possible force in nature: Fmax 
G
Where do these two essential limits come from? From the fact that the universe is the perfect smooth
continuum. Actually, they confirm that the universe is the perfect smooth continuum.
Perfectly continual functions, that is, smoothly continual functions, have
at least the first-order derivatives and the second-order derivatives,
and all of them are defined, that is: none of them is infinite, and none of them is ambiguous.
The derivative is ambiguous when there is the fracture/break of the flow of function: on one side
of the point of fracture the derivative has one value, and on the other side of the point of
fracture, the derivative has some other value.
Smoothly continual functions do not have fractures/breaks.
So, all derivatives of a smoothly continual function have some concrete, unique, defined value, and there
exists the defined, concrete, unique maximal value which none of the derivatives may surpass, that is, for

smoothly continual functions, there exists the upper limit Lmax 

df x 
dx
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SmoothFunction.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothness

13 | P a g e
The essence of that perfect, smooth continuity of universe is the time. Precisely: the NOW.
Time is not only something what does exist as a phenomenon, but it is the most fundamental
phenomenon in universe. That does not and cannot mean that it exists as some separate/independent
phenomenon. Namely, there is that what we call space. 3D emptiness. There where the space is, also is
the time. And, they are everywhere. The space exists NOW. Yes, it existed before NOW, and it will exist
after NOW, but that is because the NOW is the most fundamental everlasting continuous tiny change dt.
And it is the most fundamental event, and the most fundamental frame/”container” for each and every
other change/event/manifestation. The everlasting essential change, the always flowing NOW, the tiny
flowing connection between before and after, the essential binder of cause and effect, the essence of
causality. It is the phenomenon which is everywhere at the same time, and which is always it: NOW.
And such is the space, too: it is everywhere, NOW. Yes, it was everywhere before, too, and will be
everywhere after, too, but always within that tiny-duration which is NOW.
So, space and NOW are inseparable. Each of them contains the other. So, they are the one and the same
phenomenon, which manifests in two ways: as the space and as the NOW. And there are just two more
manifestations/behaviors (inner/innate/inherent nature) of that perfect continuum:  and  , which
were discovered by investigating/exploring the phenomena which people have named as
electromagnetic phenomena. So, we have the electromagnetic time(NOW)-space- - continuum.
Perfect continuum (discontinuities of any kind are impossible).
And within that perfect electromagnetic time(NOW)-space-- continuum exist the perfectly continual
tiny energy elements: spherical energy-solitons.

The most fundamental laws/facts of existence are:

Time cannot stop (vanish). The smallest possible time period, during which some change occurs, cannot
be 0. It can be arbitrarily small, infinitesimally small, but cannot be 0.
And during that infinitesimal time, the change of that what changes during that infinitesimal time
period, can only and exclusively be infinitesimal, too.
Namely, their ratio, that is, the infinitesimal change of that what changes through/in infinitesimal time
cannot be infinite nor ambiguous (in other words: it cannot be undefined).
E.g.: the change of position of something in time: ds/dt. That is the velocity of that something. Could
some entity, which is fundamental, move with two (or more) different velocities at the same time? Only
in someone’s mind/thoughts. And, such mind cannot really have some clear mental picture of that. It
can only say (lie) that it has imagined that. If that mind is the mind of a child which is 8 years old, or
younger, then it is childish. If that mind is the mind of somebody who is e.g. physicist, than it is insane.
What is the maximal possible velocity in universe? The velocity of light. Is it infinite/undefined? No, it is
not. And it is also not some arbitrary finite value, but it is a fixed value. (It could be greater than it is, or
smaller than it is, but it is not: it has the exact value which it has. Why? Well, why not? The world is as it
is. Maybe it could be different, but it is not. My goal is to find out why is it as it is. That is something
what nobody had accomplished so far (even the velocity of light is totally wrongly apprehended today).
So, first things first.)
Ask yourself this: Where a thing (some localized energy, or mass) would be if it would change its position
in “no time”? Two meters away? Ten light years away? At “the end of the universe”? And what about
“between” the place it started, and the place where it is … now? When? Where? So, would it be
everywhere, in no time? (or, “at the same time”?). Would its energy be spread over the distance it
passes, or it will be multiplied?

14 | P a g e
If it is spread (in no time?), then that would require an infinite force (which comes from where/what?),
which acts “in no time”, and splats that energy, and then recomposes it at some other place. During no
time at all. If someone believes that that is possible, then she/he is not sane.
On the other hand, if it is multiplied, then how much it needs to be multiplied in order to be
everywhere? Or, let us reduce that to just two places. In “no time”. Or, let us allow some infinitesimal
time: NOW. So our whole thing would be in two different places at the same time? Do you think that is
possible? If you do, then you are not sane.
Only space and time can be, and are everywhere, and only the time, nothing else but the time, is that
what can be, and is, the one and the same (the NOW) – everywhere.
The part of the space, which is in my room, is here, in my room, and the part which is in your room is
somewhere there, in your room. Both of them exist NOW, but only the NOW is both here and there, and
everywhere).
Also the change of change during infinitesimal time dt, e.g. the change of velocity, can only and
exclusively be infinitesimal, too. That is: the ratio dv/dt = d(ds/dt)/dt is finite and unambiguous. (Why?
Well, could some fundamental entity accelerate e.g. 2[m/s/s] and e.g. 5[m/s/s] at the same time? If you
think that it can, then you are not sane). And so on: da/dt must be finite and unambiguous, d(da/dt)/dt
must be finite and unambiguous. And so on.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SmoothFunction.html : "The number of continuous derivatives
necessary for a function to be considered smooth (that is: perfectly continual) depends on the problem
at hand, and may vary from two to infinity."

There is no event which we call: change, and which can happen/occur “in no time”. Everything what
exists in this universe (and there is no other) cannot exist nor change “out of time”, that is, “in 0 time”,
“in no time”. Everything what exists, exists in NOW and in space. Including the NOW and the space.
And, creation and annihilation are impossible. Neither space, nor time, nor  nor , nor energy, can be
created, nor can they vanish.
These are the reasons of causality. These are the reasons why any occurrence/event obeys some well-
defined rule, that is, the law. That is why we are able to find out these laws (e.g. the Newton’s law of
gravitation, and/or the law El .s.Tl .s.  k Et , etc.)

Newton’s definition of the force and the law of action and reaction is the first precise definition of
energy conservation law and of continuity, that is: of causality. And one can generalize that with the
Lagrangian, whose form obviously represents the equivalence and continuity of change in space and of
change in time. There is absolutely no need for Noether’s theorem – it is completely unnecessary
attempt of generalization of something what is already precisely defined and already general: the
Langrangian. It is a forcible, narcissistic, jealous, envious attempt to “embed” some representative of
“chosen people” into something important, and what is already perfectly well defined by gentile
(“human-like cattle”) Joseph-Louis Lagrange.

Conservation of space, time,  and , and of energy, and their perfect continuity, are the basic
unavoidable and inviolable facts, the inevitable facts of existence. Essentially, they are that what we call
existence. Or: that what we call existence is, essentially, the absolute existence (conserved existence) of
space, time,  and  , and of energy, and their perfect continuity.

15 | P a g e
The discontinuities/singularities are impossible. Actually, they are possible, but only in thoughts. And if
one, after careful learning, thinking and investigating, still thinks that discontinuities/singularities are
possible in the real world, then the one is insane. (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/93649-today-s-
scientists-have-substituted-mathematics-for-experiments-and-they-wander)
One could say that even some of the gravitational equations derived here, in this manuscript, have the
singularity at r = 0. Well, I can claim that these equations model the reality perfectly well starting at the
Em E
radius of each material body, and farther away. Inside the radius m , it can be that the ratio
Fmax Fmax
Em
is
r r 0
- either some finite value (if energy approaches 0 value at the center of the whirl equally fast as r),
- or 0 (if energy approaches 0 value at the center of the whirl faster than r).
In other words, although I did not provide the definite model of the situation in the center and in the
dE
central area of the two-photons-whirl, I am sure that is defined (is not ambiguous, is not
dr r 0

infinite, and is not 0/0 (and definitely it is not “uncertain”)).

And I am definitely sure that other “options” are impossible. The world is the perfect continuum, that is,
singularities cannot exist.

Also, know, the space has 3 dimensions. No more, and no less. “Nature does nothing in vain”.
The spatial dimensions are not something what can be avoided. None of its dimensions is “optional”.
None of its dimensions is “in vain”. Each of its dimensions is a must for each and every entity which
exists in universe.
There is no entity in universe which could have more than 3 dimensions.
There is no entity in universe which could have less than 3 dimensions.
Each and every entity in universe has exactly 3 dimensions, and none of these dimensions can be
infinitesimally small.
Each and every entity in universe is, essentially, energy. In time(NOW) and in space.
The essential law, according to which the most basic/fundamental entity in universe is made, is:
dEl .s. E dEl .s. E dE E
El .s.Tl .s.  k Et  El .s. dTl .s.  dEl .s.Tl .s.  0    l .s.    l .s.  l .s.   l .s.
dTl .s. Tl .s. Vl .s. dTl .s. Vl .s.Tl .s. ds l .s.
dEl .s.
This  Fmax is the unavoidable/unbreakable law.
ds
E
This l .s.  Fmax is the unavoidable/unbreakable law.
l .s.
Fmax is the limit which cannot be surpassed. If it could be surpassed, then e.g. the law of gravitation
would not be the law, but something variable, something ambiguous, something arbitrary.
The observations of our reality do not give the slightest support to any idea that the gravitation is
something arbitrary. On the contrary. Our reality absolutely confirms that the equation
F 1 EM 1 Em
1   is the LAW, to which everything what exists abides unconditionally.
Fmax Fmax r Fmax r

16 | P a g e
And:
dEl .s.
- this  Fmax says that none of the 3 dimensions of any entity can be 0. (So, 2D entities (surface-
ds
entities) do not and cannot exist; 1D entities (line-entities) do not and cannot exist; 0D entities … do I
really have to say that 0D entities are nothing?).
El . s .
- this  Fmax says that none of the 3 dimensions of any entity can be infinitesimally small:
l .s.
1 Vmax
k Et  k Et 
El . s . Tl .s. l .s. k Et  Vmax k Et  Vmax
 Fmax   Fmax   Fmax   Fmax  min 
l .s. l .s. l .s. 
2
l .s. Fmax
k Et  Vmax
So, there is no light-soliton whose diameter l .s. can be less than
Fmax
From here follows also the maximally possible energy which could fit within a sphere of that diameter:
El . s .
 Fmax  Emax  Fmax min  Emax  k Et  Vmax  Fmax
l .s.
So, there is no light-soliton:
- whose energy El .s. could be greater than k Et Vmax  Fmax ,
Vmax  Fmax
- whose frequency  l .s. could be greater than ,
k Et
k Et
- whose period Tl .s. could be less than ,
Vmax  Fmax

We can derive other limits, too, e.g. for intensity of electric and magnetic field, for elementary “charge”,
for the minimal size of elementary material particle, for its energy density, mass density, and we can
show why maximal force cannot be surpassed, but I wrote that in my other papers.

Appendix 3: Gravitational Red Shift (page 40)

Appendix 4: Gravitational Orbit Precession (page 42)

Appendix 5: Gravitational deflection of light (page 48)

Appendix 6: Shapiro time delay (page 53)

We can summarize the fundamental physics in the following way:

(1) The universe is the perfect electromagnetic continuum.

(2) It, essentially, consists of time(NOW)-space, and of energy in time(NOW)-space.

(3) There are two fundamental upper limits: Fmax , Vmax .

17 | P a g e
(4) There is the fundamental constant k E t , which is quantitatively very, very small, and it is the measure
of coupling of elementary energy and time. (It is the elementary convolution of energy and time). And
there are two fundamental lower limits:  min ,  min , which are quantitatively very small, too. And, if
we’d add to this set also the constant G , we could say that we have the complete set of four factors
which have a very small „intensity“, with which we can express both of the fundamental upper limits:
1 1
Fmax  , Vmax 
G  2
min  2
min  min  min
and with all of them together, as it was already presented, we can determine other physical limits.

(5) The simplest 3D shape is the sphere, and the essential shape of energy distribution is the soliton
profile shape, bell-shape (Gaussian-like shape), which is perfectly continual.
And the essential way of interaction is the convolution.

And, as the end of this fundamental physics rules come the essential entities which exist within the
framework expressed in the previous statements and rules:
(6) the spherical light soliton, which is made according to the most essential and the simplest
convolution/coupling of two fundamental phenomena: the convolution/product of elementary energy
and time: El .s.  Tl .s.  k Et .
(7) and the basic “material”-particles.
The confrontation of two light-solitons is the convolution (mutual flux of their energies, which is
extremely fast and focused and dense, and that causes the reaction of the  and  in the way which was
already described) whose result can be the stable whirl, which has all properties of the so called
“material”-particle (inertia (mass), “charge” (electric field), gravity).

Notice that there are 7 sections of the previous summary. That is the true origin of deviated/mystified
“ancient knowledge” known as Kabbalah, Kundalini Yoga, …, “seven days of creation” in “Old
Testament”.

Now we will summarize the fundamental equations (fundamental/core knowledge, Daath [1], [2] – no,
you will not find there the following equations, but the origin of Daath (Daath means knowledge) is what
was left as the “memory”/”knowledge” of that):

El .s.  Tl .s.  k Et

dsl .s. l .s. 1

   Vmax
dt t l .s.  min  min
min and min are the values of  and  in a completely empty space (e.g. in the middle of some huge
intergalactic void).

18 | P a g e
From the previous two equations follows: El .s.  t l .s.  El .s.  min  min  l .s.  k E t

This equation consist of all fundamental phenomena: (1) energy of light soliton, (2) time, (3) minimal
possible lengthwise capacitance, (4) minimal possible lengthwise inductance, (5) spatial component,
which completely determines the spatial size of a spherical light soliton l .s. ,
and we have the fundamental constant k E t , which is the measure of coupling.

And, now we have the clean terrain for recognizing/noticing/extracting the phenomena which are
known and used, and which are also of the fundamental level, because they are directly extractable
from the set of the most fundamental phenomena.

El .s.  min  min  l .s.  k Et

El . s .
El .s.  min  min   pl .s. (fundamental momentum (the amount of motion of a photon))
Vmax

So, El .s.  min  min  l .s.  k Et , or: pl .s.  l .s.  k Et

If we multiply the equation El .s.  t l .s.  El .s.  min  min  l .s.  k E t

with  min  min , we get

 El .s. min  min  l .s.  k Et  min  min


 ml . s .

The fundamental definition of mass (the mass which is equivalent to the energy of a light
soliton, that is, of a photon):
The fundamental mass is the measure/amount of the direct/explicit coupling of energy El .s. of
the fundamental energy enetity, and of the minimal (basic, fundamental) lengthwise
capacitance  min , and of the minimal (basic, fundamental) lengthwise inductance  min :

El . s .
ml .s.  El .s. min  min  2
Vmax

k Et
and also: El .s.  t l .s.   min  min  pl .s.t l .s.  ml .s. l .s.  k Et  min  min 
Vmax

l . s .
pl .s.  ml .s.  ml .s.Vmax
t l .s.

19 | P a g e
 Appendix1: Spherical Light Soliton
(The text starts on the next page)

20 | P a g e
 Spherical Light Soliton

If we’d have a series of light-soliton-droplets which are one behind the other (that is: a short and the
narrowest beam of light),

then the distribution of their energy-density u along some line which goes through the centers of these
droplets would be:

and the distribution of energy E(x) along some small pipe which goes through the centers of these
solitons, and whose cross section is yz [ E(x) = u(x) V, V = xyz ]

y

x

would be the distribution which is shown right above this text-line.

l . s . Vl .s. 1
l .s.  Vl .s.  Tl .s. Vl .s.   l . s .  f l . s . f l .s.  
Tl .s. l . s . Tl .s.

But also, we could have a series of light-solitons which is like this:

What is the frequency in this case?

So, it is important to notice that that what determines the light-soliton are:
its energy, its size and shape, and its velocity. The length in the direction of its propagation is l.s., and
the time during which it travels the distance which is equal to l.s. is: Tl.s. = l.s./Vl.s.

21 | P a g e
And only in the case when we have a series of light solitons which is like this

it makes sense that we talk about some consistent frequency of light fl.s. = 1/Tl.s.

In the case of one soliton, or scattered solitons, “frequency of light” does not make sense. Actually, then
we could use the word frequency, but knowing that it represents the reciprocal value of time during
which a single wave, a soliton, travels the distance which is equal to its length. Time is that what is
fundamental. Frequency is not. Frequency is, e.g., “how many solitons have passed during e.g. 6 pico-
seconds?”.
So, in this case,

and if the time which each of these solitons needs to pass the distance which is equal to its length is
Tl.s. = 1 pico-second, then the frequency would match the fundamental property of each soliton: the
time Tl.s. which it needs to pass the distance which is equal to its length:
“6 light-solitons in 6 pico-seconds”, that is, “1 soliton per 1 pico-second”, that is:
f = 1[soliton]/ Tl.s. [s] = 1[soliton]/(110-12[s]) = 11012[Hz] = 1[THz]

In this case:

the frequency is: 4 light solitons in 6 pico-seconds.

This is not 1/Tl.s., that is, this has nothing to do with Tl.s. = 10-12[s]
In this case neither:

“2 light solitons in 5 pico-seconds”.

All in all: one can use the concept of frequency, but has to be aware that it is the reciprocal value of the
time which a soliton (the shortest possible wave, and which is solitary/alone) takes to pass the distance
which is equal to its wavelength.

22 | P a g e
A heated body first emits infrared light, then red light, and as the heat (that is: kinetic energy of particles
of the heated body) increases, the body becomes brighter and brighter. That is because the higher heat
(higher thermal energy) starts to convert also into the higher frequency light. And the body becomes
brighter and brighter, and finally: white, because to the red light adds up the light of higher
frequencies (orange, then yellow, then green, blue, violet, ultraviolet, …).

So, let us notice this: higher thermal energy – higher frequency light.

It was known that the temperature of a body is the average kinetic energy of the particles which
constitute the body. In the case of a solid body (e.g. metal body) that means that its atoms vibrate. The
higher the temperature, the faster the vibrations, that is, the higher the frequencies and the amplitudes
of vibrations. And it is obvious that the vibration frequencies grow faster than the vibration amplitudes,
because a metal body can be heated to a very high temperature and to still remain solid. And when
amplitudes become too high, then it starts to melt (starts to become liquid).

And, we will try to find out the law which correlates the thermal energy of a solid body and the energy
of light which it emits. We do not know how that really happens, how exactly the thermal energy is
transformed/transduced into light. But, nevertheless, there is a way to derive the law which correlates
the thermal energy of a solid body and the energy of light which it emits.

Let us assume that we have a body which is in thermal equilibrium, which means:
it is heated up to some temperature, and it emits the solitons of light, in the way that the amount of
incoming heating energy does not increase the temperature, but is completely converted into and is
emitted as the light-solitons.
We’d assume that the particles which constitute our heated body behave as n transducers which convert
the thermal energy into light solitons, i.e., that they behave as emitters of light solitons, and that each of
these n transducers is able to emit a wide range of colors (solitons of different wavelengths).

We assume further that the total energy Etotal which constitutes the in (thermal) and out (light solitons)
energy flow through our body in thermal equilibrium, is equally distributed to each of n transducers:

23 | P a g e
 Etotal
E
n
and then all of these n transducers together emit the total energy Etotal as k light-solitons of arbitrary
energies El .s.. :

Etotal  k  El .s..

So, the flow of energy is: Etotal  n  E  k  El .s. , and the amounts are equal: Etotal  n  E  k  El .s.

In how many ways could n transducers emit k solitons?

So, e.g., in how many ways could n  2 transducers emit k  3 light-solitons?

1st transducer 2nd transducer

3 0 1st transducer emits 3 solitons and the 2nd 0
2 1 1st transducer emits 2 solitons and the 2nd 1
1 2 1st transducer emits 1 soliton and the 2nd 2
0 3 1st transducer: 0 solitons and the 2nd 3

So, 2 transducers can emit 3 solitons in 4 ways.

If we consult combinatorics (http://forum.matemanija.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=1142), we recognize that
these are not permutations, nor variations, ..., but combinations, precisely: combinations with
repetition:

 n  k  1 n  n  1  ...  n  k  2  n  k  1
C nk    
 k  k!

Let us confirm/check:
n k 1
 2  31
n  n  1  ...  n  k  2  n  k  1 4
23 4
k!  3!
4

It seems that that is that. But, let us check further:

in how many ways could n  3 transducers emit k  5 light-solitons?

n k 1
3 51
n  n  1  ...  n  k  2  n  k  1 7
3 4 5 6  7
k!  5!
 3  7  21
So, according to combinations with repetition, there should be 21 ways.
Let’s check that explicitly:
1. 2. 3.
5 0 0 (1st way)
0 5 0 (2nd way)
0 0 5 (3.)
4 1 0 (4.)
4 0 1 (5.)

24 | P a g e
1 4 0 (6.)
1 0 4 (7.)
0 4 1 (8.)
0 1 4 (9.)
3 2 0 (10.)
3 0 2 (11.)
2 0 3 (12.)
2 3 0 (13.)
0 3 2 (14.)
0 2 3 (15.)
3 1 1 (16.)
1 3 1 (17.)
1 1 3 (18.)
2 2 1 (19.)
2 1 2 (20.)
1 2 2 (21.)

And we could/should do a few more checks, and we’d see that our system’s emitting behavior is
describable with combinations with repetition:

n  n  1  ...  n  k  2  n  k  1
k!
1  2  ...  (n  1) n  n  1  ...  n  k  2  n  k  1
 
1  2  ...  (n  1) k!


n  k  1!  n  k ! n
n  1!k! n!k! n  k

When n and k are huge numbers, we can use the Stirling’s approximation ([hyperlink], [hyperlink]):

n  k n k
MM
M ! M 
n  k ! n  e nk n

n  k  nk
n
e n!k! n  k nn k k nk nnk k nk
en ek

The number n, k  

n  k
nk
n
represents the complexity of activity of our system in thermal
n k
n k nk
equilibrium.

And we want to correlate the thermal energy E of one transducer with the energy of a soliton El .s. as
the function of activity of our system: E  E El .s. ,  .

E
n  E  k  El . s .  k  n
El . s .

25 | P a g e
 E  E 
nn  E  n  1 
 E  El . s . n  1
E 

E   El . s . 
 n  n  n  l . s .  1  
 El .s.  n  El .s.  1
 E
 E
E E
 1
n n
 E  E n n  E  El . s .
n n  n  n n  n 
l .s.
El .s. El .s.
 l .s. 
E  El .s. 

 E   E   E  E E E  E 
ln   n1   ln n  n1   ln 1    n ln n  n ln n  n ln  ln 1  
 El . s .   El . s .   El . s .  El . s . El . s . El . s .  El . s . 

1  E   E   E  E E E 1  E 
ln   1   ln n  1   ln 1   ln n  ln n  ln  ln 1  
n  E l .s.   E l .s.   E l .s. 

E l .s.

E l .s. E l .s. n  E l .s. 



1  E   E   E   E  E E 1  E 
ln   1   ln n  1   ln 1   1   ln n  ln  ln 1  
n  El .s.   El . s .   El . s .   El .s .  El .s. El .s. n  El .s. 

1  E   E  E E 1  E 
ln   ln n   1   ln 1    ln  ln 1  
n  El . s .   El . s .  El .s. El .s. n  El .s. 

1  E 1  E  E E
ln   ln n   1    ln 1    ln
n  El .s. n   El .s.  El .s. El .s.
1
can be neglected:
n
n is a huge number, and k is a huge number.
E k 1 1
n  E  k  El . s .    . And also: 1 
El . s . n n n

E 1 E 1 E
So, we have that 1   , that is: 1    1
El . s . n El . s . n El . s .

 E   E  E E
ln n   1   ln 1    ln
 El . s .   El . s .  El . s . El . s .

dE dE
dE  E   E  El .s. dE E E El .s.
d ln n   ln 1    1    ln 
El .s.  El .s.   El .s.  E El .s. El .s. El .s. E
1
El .s. El .s.

26 | P a g e
 dE  E  dE dE E dE
d ln n   ln 1     ln 
El . s .  El . s .  El . s . El . s . El . s . El . s .

dE  E  dE E
d ln n   ln 1    ln
El . s .  El . s .  El . s. El . s .

dE   E  E 
d ln n   ln 1    ln 
El .s .   El . s .  El . s . 

E
1
dE El .s. dE  El .s. 
d ln n   ln  ln 1  
El .s. E El .s.  E 
El .s.
El . s . El . s .
 dE   dE 
 E  El .s. E   El .s.  
ln 1  l .s.    1  l .s.  e  d ln  
 e  d ln  
1
n n

 E   dE  E E
 

 d ln n  

E
E l .s.
El . s .
 dE 
 
 d ln  
1
n
e
Instruments which are made by scientists/engineers to measure the light intensity (see also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrometer), measure how much energy flows through some surface during
some time, or: how much power (energy in time) goes through some surface [W/m2], which is named as
the flux of power, or the power-flux.
And they use them to determine, e.g.,
- the distribution of power-flux per wavelength as the function of wavelength,
- or the distribution of power-flux per frequency [W/m2]/[Hz] as the function of frequency [Hz]:

And the measurements/experiments show that

[W/m2]/[Hz]

that distribution is somewhat like this:

[W/m2]/[Hz]

[Hz]
[Hz]

E
And this is the base-equation with which we should fit that: E l .s.
El . s .
 dE 
 
 d ln  
1
n
e

27 | P a g e
Light-soliton should be (actually: has to be) a spherical energy-soliton.
The average cross section of a spherical light soliton which passes through (goes through) some flat
surface/plane which is perpendicular to the moving path of the spherical light soliton, is:

/2
y
x

l . s . / 2 l . s . / 2 l . s . / 2
  l2.s. 2  l2.s.  x3
Ac.s. 
1
   y ( x)dx  2
  4   x 
dx   / 2   / 2   
l . s . l . s . l . s . 4 l . s . 3
l . s . l . s .
x / 2 l .s. x   l . s . / 2   l . s . / 2

l2.s.   3l .s. 3l .s.  2  l2.s. 2 l2.s.  2

       l .s.     l .s.
4 3l .s.  8 8  4 3 4 3 4 6

   Vl .2s.
Ac.s.   2
 V T 2 2

6  l2.s.
l .s. l .s. l .s.
6 6

Through that average area (average cross-section) Ac.s. passes the amount of energy El .s. during the
time Tl .s. :

6 1 3
El . s .  l .s.
El .s. / Tl .s. Pl .s. El .s. l .s.  Vl .2s.
 I  , T   E
6 1 3 6 1 3
   El . s .   l .s. 
Ac.s. Ac.s.  Vl .s.
2
 Vl .2s. l .s.  Vl .2s. El . s .
 dE 
 
6  l2.s. e  d ln  
n
1
So, at a given temperature of a body, the elementary transducer would emit the following power per
area (power-flux) per light frequency:

6 1 2
El . s .  l .s.
 Vl .2s. El .s. l2.s.
I /  , T  
6 1

El . s .
 dE 
 Vl .2s. El . s .
 dE 
   
 d ln  
1  d ln  
1
n n
e e
The indicator/measure of turmoil/activity/temperament of elements of a body is: temperature. Higher
the activity of elements, so higher the temperature. That means that there’s more energy. [But that also
means that there is the higher frequency of oscillations of atoms (which, as it is known, is not followed
by an equal rate of increase of amplitudes of these oscillations)].

Also the frequency of some events is the indicator/measure of activity. Higher the frequency, so higher
the activity. That does not necessarily mean that there’s more energy involved, but in the case of a
heated body, it does mean that there’s more energy involved.

28 | P a g e
 dE
It is not hard to conclude that d ln n 
has to do with temperature. In the state of thermal equilibrium, we
have some given temperature, the temperature which does not change.
dE dE
So, let us correlate d ln n 
with that steady temperature of the thermal equilibrium: d ln n 
~T

What is left is El .s. .

Well, it is easy to apprehend that the higher frequency of emitting of individual solitons means that
more energy will be emitted during some time period – namely: if there are e.g. five light solitons
emitted during e.g. 5 pico-seconds, that’s more energy than if only one light soliton is emitted during 5
pico-seconds. But that frequency has nothing to do with the frequency of individual light-soliton (which
is the reciprocal value of time which each individual soliton takes to pass the distance which is equal to
its wavelength). And here, in the equation, we have the energy of only one light soliton.
Well, we have, basically, four options to investigate:
(1) that each soliton has energy which is not the function of its frequency, that is, that it is constant (in
which case we’d get I /  , T  ~  l2.s. , that is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe),
(2) that each soliton’s energy increases with frequency (the simplest assumption in that case would be
that its energy is directly proportional to its frequency),
(3) that each soliton’s energy (somehow) decreases with frequency,
(4) that each soliton’s energy is some variable (nonlinear) function of frequency.

The only option which would fit the shape of measured distributions is the option (2), that is:

6 1 ~  l .s.  l2.s.  l3.s.

I /  , T   . Namely, if we sketch* the equation ~ l . s .
:
 Vl .2s. ~~lT. s .
e 1 e ~T
1
* The 19th–century–scientists would have to sketch it using “manual”-calculations, and we can use e.g.
http://fooplot.com/ : 2*x^3/(e^(x/0.9)-1) 2*x^3/(e^(x/1)-1) 2*x^3/(e^(x/1.1)-1)
I(, T) [(W/m2)/Hz]

T1 < T2 < T3

[Hz]

we get the shape which resembles very much the distribution which one gets using the experimental
data. (Actually, I could not find any 19th–century-experimental-data of this type, but according to this

29 | P a g e
article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer#Langley's_bolometer , 19th –century-physicists were able to
measure, and should had measured these types of radiation-spectrums.)

So, this implies that energy of a light-soliton is directly proportional to its frequency, that is,
to the reciprocal value of time which a light-soliton takes to pass the distance which is equal
to its length:
1
El .s.  k Et  l .s.  k Et  ,
Tl .s.

that is, El .s.  Tl .s.  k Et

And if this is the true law of nature, then it would be one of the simplest fundamental laws of
existence, which very simply and perfectly determines the
coupling/conjugation/interaction/convolution of elementary energy and time, to which light-
solitons obey. And the “great magicians/sorcerers” of modern “physics” interpreted that as “uncertainty”. In
other words: they have made the total misinterpretation. And made the mystical fundamental Grand-Casino
which they named as Quantum “mechanics”. Mathematical mysticism, i.e., the worst possible mental-deviation in
the history of mankind.
l .s.
Also, we should notice this: El .s.  Tl .s.  El .s.   k Et  El .s.  l .s.  k EtVl .s.
Vl .s.
that is: the higher the energy of a light-soliton, so smaller the light-soliton is – so denser is its energy.

And, we will have the opportunity to confirm the law El .s.  Tl .s.  k Et in the most beautiful
way: in the final step of derivation of Newton’s law of gravitation (and which, from the
contemporary “physics” perspective represents the so called “unification of physics”, but
from the perspective of true fundamental physics, there does not exist any “division” at all –
in true fundamental physics everything is inherently unified).
And, if the 19th-century-physicists would had done what is done here,
and they definitely could – derivation presented here is definitely easier than the derivation of
this (done in 1860.). (Also, notice the shape-similarity of that distribution to the distribution
we’ve got here)
then they would not need to wait the Planck’s hypothesis in 1901., and when it came, it was completely
ignored by the physicists, and what lead to their embarrassment in 1905. by Einstein’s explanation of
the “inexplicable mystery” of photoelectric effect (which was discovered in 1887., and became fully
explainable in 1897.)

30 | P a g e
 Appendix 2: Two Light Solitons Whirl
(The text starts on the next page)

31 | P a g e
 Two Light Solitons Whirl

In order to have the uniform circular motion of whatever what whirls, the velocity of that what whirls
should be (almost) linear function of the distance from the whirl center in the area where whirls that
what whirls:

2
vr   r  r
T
   v   1
 r  t 

There is purely logically and physically explainable reason (which will be presented soon) why the
whirling-area of two light-solitons is represented as the dark-yellow ring area on the picture.
So, in order to have the simplest whirl of light: the whirl formed by two light-solitons, we have to have
linear velocity distribution in the whirling-area. And such velocity distribution has to be the consequence
of some appropriate distributions of  and . So, what should be the radial distributions of  and ?
We know that the essential cause of light continual bending is the continual change of  and .
- Towards the whirl center,  and  should increase, smoothly continually,
- and far away from the whirl center, they should be practically constant, approaching their minimal
possible values  min and  min .

2
V r  
1
vr  
1
Well, r  r  
 r  r  T 1 1

r r
So, in the vicinity of the whirl-center
 r  should be  r ~ , and  r  should be  r ~ . When r increases, then, obviously,  0 .
1 1 1
r r r
And far from the whirl-center, that is, for r>> , we should have that
 r     min , and  r    min

So, taking all that into account, the simplest way to mathematically model that, is:

 1  r   R   1  r   R 
 r    min 1  R  , i.e:  1   and  r    min 1  R  , i.e.:  1  
 r  min  r   r  min  r 

32 | P a g e
Hence, the radial distribution of  and  (radially around the whirl-center) would look somewhat like
this:

In other words: the values of  and  would continually increase in the direction towards the light-whirl
center (or: would continually decrease radially away from the light-whirl center).

But, what could cause such distribution of  and ?

Well, that what determines the motion of light are  and .
So, there must be some interaction/coupling among light and  and . More precisely said: there must
be some interaction among the fundamental electromagnetic entity (EM-energy droplet) and the
fundamental electromagnetic essence of space:  and .
If  and  affect the light (determine the motion of it), then, in some specific occasions, the light
should/could be able to affect the  and , too.
What occasion could be more specific and more drastic, than the highly focused confrontation of two
fastest things in universe: the confrontation of two very narrow beams of light which have sufficiently
high energy density?
Any arguments against this assumption/hypothesis? Is it absurd? Illogical? Unworthy of investigation?
Somebody had already investigated that?
It was known, for a long, long time already, that the light which is focused (using glass-lenses) does heat,
and burn, and melt things.
So, maybe, the sufficiently focused confrontation of two beams of light of sufficiently high energies can
cause that  and  increase.
But, the elementary particle of matter, the simplest matter-particle, should be the simplest whirl: the
whirl of two light-solitons.

Lord Reileigh was the first to estimate the size of a molecule:

https://www.osa-opn.org/home/articles/volume_20/issue_6/features/lord_rayleigh_a_scientific_life/

And scientists knew also that molecules are made of atoms, that is, of even smaller entities:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/john-dalton-and-atomic-theory/

So, in order to form an elementary matter-particle, light solitons which could form it, would have to
have a very, very short wavelength:  10
10
m . Shorter than visible light. And physicists knew that
33 | P a g e
invisible high-frequency light exists: ultraviolet light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Discovery,
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/ritter_bio.html – so it was plausible
to expect that even higher-frequency light might exist, too.
Vl .s.
And since l .s.  Vl .s.Tl .s.  , that would mean that a light solitons which could form the whirl, that
f l .s.
is, which could form an elementary particle, would have to have a very high frequency, and sufficiently
high energy.

And, if the law El .s.  Tl .s.  k Et , that is, El .s.  k Et  l .s. , is valid, then all that would be quite feasible,
quite plausible, quite normal. The smaller the light-soliton, so the higher its energy. And the denser is its
energy. And the confrontation of such solitons would be the most possibly intensive/offensive-and-
focused occurrence which  and  which are in the middle of that confrontation, could experience. There
is no other event in universe which could produce such extremely fast and high energy-density increase
within such a small volume of space. And which, as the sane reasoning says, simply has to affect  and .

So, the increase of  and  should be directly proportional to the energies of confronting light-solitons.
 r
So, instead of R we should put energy E and some number  which has to have the dimension ,
 E
  E 
so that we get the dimensionless number. Hence, our model becomes:  1  
0  r 
E 1   1 E 
The term has the dimension of force, so we’ll replace  with :  1
r K F   0  K F  r 

The increase of  and  can only and exclusively be at the expense of the part of energy amounts of the
two confronting light-solitons. In other words: part of energies of these solitons transforms into the
increase of  and  in the area of confrontation.

We have the sudden, extremely fast (actually: the most possibly fast) increase (change) of energy
density in the area of confrontation, which causes the increase (change) of  and  , and – since the
relation among energy density u and  and  is: u  1  K 2  1 B 2  – that should also result with some
2   
electric field K and some magnetic field B.

1 2 1 d 2 1 u 1 2 u 1 B2
du  K d  KdK  B  BdB  K 
2 2 2   2  2 2
The purpose of this is just to show that it is plausible to expect that there, where the change of energy
density occurs, and also the change of  and , we should expect also the electric field K and magnetic
field B. And, if we take that energy and  and  are the most fundamental things, then K and B are
something what is the consequence of the change of energy and of  and .

34 | P a g e
Let us have two light-solitons which approach to each other along two very near parallel opposite
directions:

And then, they overlap:

35 | P a g e
 5
4

2 3

Before the confrontation,  and  were flat (line 1). (That is, e.g., the case in the middle of some huge
intergalactic void).

Then, two light-solitons (lines 2 and 3) overlap, and the sum of their energy distributions would be that
what is represented with the line 4.

Overlapping (confronting) would cause the increase of  and  (line 5).

And that comes at the expense of the amount of overlapped energy, so, when we subtract that part of
energy which has converted into the increase of  and  , from the total energy (represented with the
line 4) we get the new, remaining distribution of the, so to say, not-transformed energy, which is
represented with the line 6.

Hence, we would have the whirl which, looking from above, looks somewhat like this:
All this is completely open for further investigation.
Maybe we can have the case that the complete
energy of the confronting light-solitons transforms
into  and  and appropriate electric and magnetic
fields, or … .
All in all, that what we surely can have is:
- that the two slightly confronting high-energy light-
solitons cause the slight/small change of  and 
which only slightly bend their path, and they go
away along the straight paths which have slightly
different directions than they had before their slight
confrontation,
- or, they can overlap a bit more, so that the change
of their directions is greater,
- or, they can overlap enough to form a temporary
whirl,
- or, they can form a stable whirl.

36 | P a g e
And now, we will see/check if the following approximations for  and  distributions:

  1 E    1 E 
 1  1
 0  K F  r   0  K F  r 
are good approximations for  and  distributions outside the whirl.

E is the total amount of confronted energy of light solitons which have formed the whole new whirly-
entity and the new distribution of  and ,
and such whirly-entity would also have electric field which has to have some radial form, that is, which
looks like it has a “source” (which is considered to be something what is named as charge, and what is
regarded as “a source of electric field”. But, in reality, there is no such thing as charge – electric field is
the result of whirly-interaction of energy and  and). (And we’d have a magnetic field, too, which is
much, much smaller than the electric field, but let us, for now, focus on (talk just about) the electric
field).
So, the radial electric field does not necessarily have to be perfectly spherical.
u 1 u 1
  K   K 2 or outward oriented:   K   K 2
2 1 2 1
And it can be either inward
 2 2  2 2
Also, the whirl-as-a-whole, as the new kind of entity, has the new ability: the whirl-as-a-whole can have
velocities which range from 0 and up. In order to change the velocity which the whirl-as-a-whole has,
that is, in order to accelerate/decelerate the whirl-as-a-whole, one has to apply force. And we know that
the ratio of that force and of that acceleration/deceleration has to be proportional to mass. To the mass
of our whirl.
So, the two-light-solitons-whirl obviously, can have (or: has) all properties of the so called material
particle.

Let us – so to say – wrap-up things like this:

two spherical high-energy light-solitons confront almost
directly, so that they – so to say – pinch the  and  , and
the distribution of  and  becomes somewhat like this:

The simplest elementary particle would be the two-light-solitons whirl. But, it is not impossible that
there are a bit more complicated elementary particles, e.g. which consist of, perhaps interweaved
whirls, and that these more complicated elementary particles, in combination with the elementary
particle formed by two-light-soliton whirls, do form new, stable and electrically neutral entities, e.g.
atoms.
Namely, just look at that what Tait had come up with, investigating the possible loops (knots) of aether
vortexes: you can start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knot_theory#Early_modern and follow
the links given there. I am not saying that one should try to apply that to light-soliton-whirls. What I
want to say is that the two light solitons whirl is electron, and that the proton and neutron are a bit
more complicated whirly-formations of light-solitons, and which would also affect  and  in the same
way.

37 | P a g e
Let us suppose that we have, e.g., three types of elementary particles: type a, type b and type c.
Today, we know that there are three elementary entities which form an atom:
electron, proton, and neutron (and even if we take that proton and neutron are made of up- and down-
quarks, we still have three elementary entities).
One elementary particle of type a affects  and  like this:

 1 E a   1 E a 
 1a   min 1  1a   min 1 
 K F  r   K F  r 

where  min   r  , and  min   r  , and they both have some small, but finitely small values:
 min   0 , but  min   0 ,  min  0 ,  min  0

If we bring one more particle of type a at a distance which is much, much less than the far away
distance r ), we’d have:
2
 1 E a   1 E a  1 E a   1 E a 
 2a   1a 1    min 1  1   min 1 
 K   K  K   K 
 F  r  F  r  F  r  F  r 
   
1a

na
 1 E a 
If we have n a particles of type a, we’d have n   min 1 
a  K F  r 

na
 1 E a   1 Eb 
If we add now one particle of type b, we’d have: n 1   min 1  1
a b  K F  r   K F  r 


If there are n a particles of type a, and nb particles of type b, we’d have:

na nb
 1 E a   1 Eb 
n n   min 1  1
a b  K F  r   K F  r 


If there are n a particles of type a, and nb particles of type b, and nc particles of type c, we’d have:

na nb nc
 1 E a   1 Eb   1 Ec 
n n n   min 1  1 1
a b c  K F  r   K F  r   K F  r 


  n  n  n  n1 
1  u n  1   u   u 2  ...   u  u n 
  1  2  n  1 

38 | P a g e
If n is a huge number, e.g.: n  6  10 23 , we’d have:
  1  1  2 
 n 2 1   n 3 1  1   
  enu
u  ...   1  nu  nu   nu   ... 
  n 2  n  n  3 1 1
1  u   1  nu 
2 3
u 
n

2! 3!   2! 3! 
 
 
na Ea nb Eb nc Ec 1 na Ea  nb Eb  nc Ec 1 EM

 n n n     min e   min e   min e

K F  r K F  r K F  r K F  r K F  r
a b c
e e

where E M is the energy of the whole material object which consists of all elementary particles of types
a, b, and c.
1 EM 1 EM

   min e    min e
K F  r K F  r
So, we’ve got , and, in the same way, we’d get

39 | P a g e
 Appendix 3: Gravitational Red-Shift
(The text starts on the next page)

40 | P a g e
 Gravitational Red-Shift

dEl .s. r  GM E r 
GM 1

El .s. r   E l .s.  e
2 r
Using the equation
Vmax
or equation   2 l .s2. it is easy to calculate that
dr r Vmax
the relative change of energy of light which would travel vertical distance of e.g. 22.5[m] starting from Earth
El .s.
surface, is  2.456  10 15 (and that is something what would, later, be confirmed by the Pound-Rebka
El . s .
experiment).

https://www.science20.com/the_gem_1-127962
Click on „Read more“, and then use the text-search-tool: Ctrl-f, and search for Pound-Rebka

41 | P a g e
 Appendix 4: Gravitational Orbit Precession
(The text starts on the next page)

42 | P a g e
 Gravitational Orbit Precession

In determining the orbits using the Newton’s law of gravitation and Lagrangian,
d 
one uses the equation ds  dr  r d , and time-derivations
2 2 2 2

dt
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/papers/Genrel.pdf , The Classical Solution, page 2 of 10
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

So, if the 19th-century-physicists would had done what was presented so far (and they definitely could
had done that), then Maxwell, or e.g. Urban Le Vernier, could had checked the validity of the
assumption that matter is made of light, by trying to use the equation:
GM 1
2 2
dsr   ds  ds  ds  e
2
r
2 2 Vmax r

where dsr  dr ds  r  d ds  r sin   d

and the equation:

EM 1 GM 1
 
d  dt r   e
2
dt  e
K F  r Vmax r
dt

to calculate the Mercury precession.

Namely, these equations are applicable on gross bodies only and exclusively if matter-particles are the
light-whirls.

https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm :

„... when we observe the axis of the elliptical orbit of a planet such as Mercury (for example) over a long period of
time, referenced to our equinox line, we must expect to find an apparent precession of about 0.01396 degrees per
year, which equals 5025 arc seconds per century, assuming Mercury's orbital axis is actually stationary. However,
astronomers have actually observed a precession rate of 5600 arc seconds per century for the axis of Mercury's
orbit, so evidently the axis is not truly stationary. This might seem like a problem for Newtonian gravity, until we
remember that Newton predicted stable elliptical orbits only for the idealized two-body case. When analyzing the
actual orbit of Mercury we must also take into account the gravitational pull of the other planets, especially Venus
and Earth (because of their proximity) and Jupiter (because of its size). It isn't simple to work out these effects, and
unfortunately there is no simple analytical solution to the n-body problem in Newtonian mechanics, but using the
calculational techniques developed by Lagrange, Laplace, and others, it is possible to determine that the effects of
all the other planets should contribute an additional 532 arc seconds per century to the precession of Mercury's
orbit. Combined with the precession of our equinox reference line, this accounts for 5557 arc seconds per century,
which is close to the observed value of 5600, but still short by 43 arc seconds per century. The astronomers
assure us that their observations can't be off by more than a fraction of an arc second, so there seems to be a
definite problem here.“

Hence, the terrain was already cleared by the good work of mathematicians, physicists and astronomers
(and Urban Le Vernier was one of them):

43 | P a g e
- they have thoroughly proved that elliptical orbits:

r   

a  1  e2  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse)
1  e  cos 
are the consequence of Newton’s law of gravitation.

- they have discovered that, if the Sun and Mercury would be alone, free of any other influence, then
the Mercury’s elliptical orbit would precess 43 arc-seconds in 100 years.
And that was a mystery.

So, let’s try to solve it.

Assuming that we have only the Sun and the planet Mercury, we will derive the law of change of the
coordinate  for Mercury.

- first by using the equation ds  dr  r d (that is: the case when there is no precession),
2 2 2 2

GM 1

 e
4
- and then by using the equation ds  dr  r d
2
2 2 2 2 Vmax r

L  T V
L d L

X dt X
L – Lagrangian
T – kinetic energy
V – potential energy
X – space-coordinate
X – time derivative of the space-coordinate

s  sr ,   – position of the planet

ds
s  – velocity
dt
1
T  ms 2 – kinetic energy
2
GMm
V – gravitational potential energy
r

ds 2  dr 2  r 2 d 2
dsr  dr ds  rd
ds r dr ds d
sr    r s  r  r
dt dt dt dt
s 2  sr2  s2  r 2  r 2 2

44 | P a g e
ds 2  2sds  2rdr  2rdr 2  r 2 2d
sds  rdr  rdr 2  r 2d
1 2 1 GMm 1  2 2GM 
L  TV  ms  V  ms 2   m s  
2 2 r 2  r 
1 2GM 
L / m   s 2  
2 r 
GM GM
dL / m  sds  2 dr  rdr  rdr 2  r 2d  2 dr
r r
L / m L / m
0  r 2
 
d L / m L / m

dt  
d L/ m
d 2
dt
  L
r   0  r 2  const.  L/ m    /2m 
r dt
 2
r
( L  mr  is the well known constant of motion: the angular momentum)
2

Let us use the symbol  n. p. instead of  , to denote the case when there is no precression.
d n. p. L/ m
So, 
dt r2

Now we’ll do the same derivation, but by using

GM 1

 e
4
ds  dr  r d
2
2 2 2 2 Vmax r

GM 1 GM 1 GM 1

 
4 2 4 2 4 2
ds  dr  r d  e
2 2 2 2 Vmax r
 dr  e
2 Vmax r
 r d  e
2 2 Vmax r

GM 1 GM 1
2 2 2 2
dsr  dr  e Vmax r
ds  rd  e Vmax r

GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1
ds dr 2Vmax 2 2 dsd 2Vmax 2 2
 r  e Vmax
2 2
sr  r  e  r  e Vmax s  r e
r r r r

d d d d
GM 1 GM 1
4 2 4 2
s  s  s  r  e
2 2
r
2 2 Vmax r
 r  2  e
2 Vmax r

ds 2  2sds
GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1
4
GM 1 4Vmax 4 2
 2  e Vmax 2  
4 2
2  2 GM 1
4 2
   
2 2
 2rdr  e  r 2 4    
Vmax r r r Vmax r Vmax r
2 2
e dr 2 rdr r 2 d e r 4 2 2
e dr
Vmax r Vmax r

45 | P a g e
 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1
4
GM 1 4 2 r 4 2 4 2
GM 1 4 2 r
 2r 2 2 e Vmax dr  rdr 2  e Vmax  r 2d  e Vmax  2r 2 2 2 2 e Vmax dr
2
sds  rdr  e Vmax r 2 r r

Vmax r Vmax r
GM 1
 GM 1 GM dr  4 2 r
  rdr  2r 2 2 2 dr  rdr 2  r 2d  2r 2 2 2 2   e Vmax
 Vmax r Vmax r 
1 1 GMm 1  2 2GM 
L  ms 2  V  ms 2   m s  
2 2 r 2  r 
1 2GM 
L / m   s 2  
2 r 
GM
dL / m  sds  2 dr
r
GM 1
 GM 1 GM dr  4 2 r GM
  rdr  2r 2 2 2 dr  rdr 2  r 2d  2r 2 2 2 2   e Vmax  2 dr
 Vmax r Vmax r  r

d L / m d  2  4Vmax 
GM 1
L / m r 

2
0  r  e
 dt  dt  
 
d L / m L / m

dt  

d  2  4Vmax 
GM 1 GM 1 GM 1 GM 1
r  2 
4 2
 L/ m 4Vmax d L/ m 4Vmax
r  e  0  r  e  const.  L/ m    2  e
2 2 2
Vmax r
  2 e
r r

dt   r d r
 
So,
d dn. p. 4Vmax
GM 1
2
 e
r

d dt
dn. p.
GM 1
d 4 2
 e Vmax r
GM 1
 2
Vmax r
dt
e dt
GM 1
3 2
d  dn. p.  e Vmax r

The case when there is no precession is the case in which the body makes exactly one half revolution
when  n. p. goes from 0 to 


 d
0
n. p .  (one half revolution, one half of the stationary elliptical orbit)

GM 1
3 2
But, now, when dn. p. in d  dn. p.  e Vmax r
goes from 0 to , we’d have a precession:

46 | P a g e
n . p . 

n . p .  GM 1
3 2   GM 1 

 Vmax r  GM 1
 d   0  dn. p.  e   0 1  3 Vmax
2
dn. p.    3 2  dn. p.     prec.
r  Vmax 0 r
n . p . 0 n. p.  

GM 1

r  r   

a  1  e2 
 prec.  3 2
Vmax 0 r dn. p. 1  e  cos  n. p.


1 1  e  cos  n. p.

1

e


0 r dn. p.  0 a  1  e 2 dn. p.  a  1  e 2
    0 dn. p.  a  1  e 2 0 cos n. p. dn. p.  a  1  e 2
   
  
 0

GM   rad
 prec.  3

Vmax a  1  e 1  revol.
2 2

2
Semi-major eccentricity e revolutions per observed precession
axis a [AU] century [arcsec]/[century]

Mercury 0.38709893 0.20563069 415.2 43.1  0.5

AU (Astronomical Unit): 149 597 870 700 [m]

11  m3 
G  6.74  10  2 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
 kg  s 
Sun mass: M  1.989  10
30
kg
Vmax = 3108 [m/s]

So,
 arc sec 
360  60  60
 prec.  3
GM  rad    revol.   415.2 revol. 
Vmax a  1  e 2
2
  1
revol. 2 
 rad   century 
 
2 
 revol. 
 m3 
6.74  10 11  2
 1.989  1030 kg 
3  kg  s  
360  60  60  arc sec 
 415.2
8 2

3  10 [m /s ]2 2
 0.3871  149597870700m  1  0.20563 2 
 century   
 arc sec 
 prec.  43.356 
 century 

47 | P a g e
 Appendix 5: Gravitational Light Bending
(The text starts on the next page)

48 | P a g e
 Gravitational Light Bending (text in Serbian language)
Ископирано из документа FBff(2).docx, који је доступан на https://www.facebook.com/bruka8

Скретање светлости у гравитационом пољу

Ајнштајн је, у свом другом покушају да изведе једначину за гравитационо скретање светлости,
комбиновао

- једначину за брзину светлости коју је извео из своје генералне теорије релативности

- и давно познату класичну једначину за прорачун скретања светлости у медијуму са
континуално променљивом оптичком густином:

https://home.fnal.gov/~syphers/Education/Notes/lightbend.pdf, видите страну 2, једначину (6):

d 1 dv

dx c dy
И ... нико није приметио да је Ајнштајн погрешнo употребио ту једначину.
1 1
Наиме, не може да стоји , већ мора да стоји . То је Ајнштајн урадио вероватно заслепљен својом
c v
небулозном идејом о универзалној константности брзине светлости. Али, опет, ако погледате и његову
једначину за брзину светлости у гравитационом пољу, очигледно је да је она функција од радијалне
удаљености од извора гравитације, и да тежи вредности c само када r   . Дакле, исправна примена
дате калсичне једначине за скретање светлости у датим околностима може да буде само оваква
d 1 dv d 1 dv
 , а никако оваква 
dx v dy dx c dy
И не само да то он није приметио, него, као што видите из малопре наведеног документа, који је писан пре
12 година (2007.), ни физичари који су то писали уопште нису то приметили.

49 | P a g e
Исправна једначина јесте, дакле, следећа једначина:
d 1 dv ph r 

dx v ph r  dy

Међутим, то још увек није потпуно исправна једначина. Зато што она
не узима у обзир чињеницу да енергија фотона расте када се фотон
приближава извору гравитације.
Па шта с тим?
Па, фотон веће енергије скреће више од фотона чија је енергија мања. (Сетите се Њутнове призме)
Дакле, још један пропуст, и од стране Ајнштајна, а онда и од стране свих физичара после њега. И физичара
који су писали овај текст https://home.fnal.gov/~syphers/Education/Notes/lightbend.pdf, и који раде, ни мање
ни више, него баш овде: http://www.fnal.gov/ (дакле, у једном од најчувенијих института за физику, у коме
се налази један од најпознатијих акцелератора честица: у Fermilab-у!).
Наиме, и теорија релативности „предвиђа“ red-shift (тј. смањење енергије фотона) када се фотон удаљава
од извора гравитације, односно blue-shift (тј. повећање енергије фотона) када се фотон приближава извору
гравитације. А то се, у извођењу које је дато у документу
https://home.fnal.gov/~syphers/Education/Notes/lightbend.pdf, не узима у обзир.

И, како да одредимо/урачунамо колико промена енергије фотона утиче на скретање?

Један од начина би био тај, да енергију фотона доведемо у корелацију са оним што већ знамо
dv ph r 
како и колико утиче, а то је фактор :
v ph r 
инфинитезимална промена угла одступања правца кретања светлости у односу на правац x
d
јесте , и та промена је узрокована инфинитезималном променом брзине светлости (у
dx
dv ph r  / v ph r 
односу на брзину коју светлост има у тачки (x, y)) дуж координатног правца y : .
dy
Довођење у корелацију енергије са тим фактором значи, у најједноставнијем случају, да – ако је то
могуће – нађемо овакву, најједноставнију, најексплицитнију, везу:
dv ph r 
(uticaj energije) = k  , k 0
v ph r 

и да онда то урачунамо:

d 1 dv ph r  1 dv ph r  1 dv ph r  1 dv ph r 
  uticaj energije   k  1  k 
dx v ph r  dy v ph r  dy v ph r  dy v ph r  dy

На основу нових једначина које су до сада изведене:

GM 1 GM 1

E ph r   E ph  e V2 r
v ph r   V  e V2 r

то није тешко урадити:

50 | P a g e
 GM 1 GM 1

E ph r   v ph r   E ph  e V V  e  E ph  V
2 r
V2 r

E ph r1   v ph r1   E ph r2   v ph r2   ...  E ph  V

Значи, за фотон који се креће кроз гравитационо поље, важи:

d E ph r   v ph r   0
E ph r   v ph r   const.  E ph r dv ph r   v ph r dE ph r   0
dE ph r  dv ph r 
 
E ph r  v ph r 

dE ph r  dv ph r  dE ph r  dv ph r 
Дакле, uticaj energije  је  , и његова веза са јесте:  
E ph r  v ph r  E ph r  v ph r 

па, стога, имамо:

dv ph r  dE ph r 

d v ph r  E ph r 
је једнако и ,
dx dy dy
то јест:

d dv ph r  dE ph r  dv ph r  dv ph r 
dy     ,
dx v ph r  E ph r  v ph r  v ph r 

  2 
GM 1

d V e V r 

d dv ph r   
dy  2 2    2 GM 1 dr
dx v ph r  GM 1
 2 V 2 r2
V e V r

d GM 1 dr dr 1 2y y
2 2 2 r  x2  y2   
dx V r dy dy 2 x y
2 2
x  y2
2

d GM 1 y
2 2 2
dx V x  y2 x  y2
2

GM y
d  2 dx
x 
3
V2 2
y 2 2

51 | P a g e
 x  Y  tan u
Y 1 1 1
 dx  Y  dx  1 Y Y du
x  x  dx  Y
 
3 3 3
du cos 2 u
2
Y 2 2 2
Y 2 2
cos 2 u Y 2  tan 2 u  Y 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Y Y du   du   du
 
3 2 3 2
cos u Y cos u Y 1 cos 2 u
Y 3 tan 2 u  1 2  1  2
  cos 3 u
 cos u 
2

1 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 1
 sin u    
Y Y
1
1 Y
1
1 Y x2  Y 2 Y Y2
1
tan 2 u x2 x2
Y2

 x   2 lim  x   2 lim  x   2
GM 1 x GM 1 GM 1
V2 Y x2  Y 2 x V2 Y x V2 Y

y
... а, у ствари, њена
светлост долази из x
овог правца

Звезда је, привидно,

у овом правцу, ...

Укупан угао одступања између правца из којег нам изгледа да долази светлост звезде, и правца
из ког стварно долази њена светлост, износи:

GM 1 GM 1 GM 1
2 2
2 2 4 2
V Y V Y V Y
То је једначина која исправно моделује реалност, тј. у складу је са мерењима која је извршио
Едингтон https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment (којима је „потврдио“ Ајнштајнов „прорачун“,
„заснован“ на Ајнштајновој псеудо-физици и погрешно примењеној математици).

52 | P a g e
 Appendix 6: Gravitational Time Delay
(The text starts on the next page)

53 | P a g e
 Gravitational Time Delay (text in Serbian language)

Šapirovo kašnjenje
U obzir je uzet samo uticaj Sunca – uticaji Marsa i Zemlje, kao i savijanje putanje fotona, jesu zanemareni.

Jednačina dužine predstavljena je u proračunu samo sa prva sva člana njenog razvoja u Tejlorov red. Takođe,
rastojanja između M i S (Marsa i Sunca), i između E i S (Zemlje i Sunca) jesu aproksimirana.

Sve ove aproksimacije učinjene su radi pojednostavljenja proračuna, i pritom su potpuno opravdane činjenicom da
zanemarljivo utiču na tačnost konačnog rezultata.
m = 1.9891030 kg – masa Sunca;
Sc
rS = 6.95108 m – radijus Sunca;
rS r
G = 6.6742810-11 m3kg-1s-2
M S E
c = 299792458 ms-1
l
ES c = 1.51011 m – rastojanje Zemlja–Sunce;

MS c = 2.2791011 m – rastojanje Mars–Sunce;

G m
2 
Jednačina promene dužine fotona duž radijusa jeste dsr   dr  e c2 r

dr r  l   ,dlds r  l   ,dl 

G m
2  
Duž putanje l , imali bi: dsr l    dr r l    e c 2 r l 
dr r  l   cos   dl 

ds r  l   cos   d l 

G m G m
2 2
dsr l  cosα   dr r l  cosα   e c 2 r l 
 d l  dl  e c 2 r l 

2 Gm
l2 
2Gm l2  l2
c 2 r l   
 l  e  e    1 2 2Gm
c 2 l 2  rS2 l2  l22  rS2
dl  l   l2 l1  
2 Gm
dl dl ln
l1 
S 
c l 2
 r 2 c2 l1  l12  rS2
l1 l1

Putanju od Zemlje (E) do Marsa (M) i nazad, podelićemo u četiri etape: ES, SM, MS, SE.

Posmatrajmo prvo poslednju etapu, SE. Ako tačku S uzmemo kao koordinatni početak, i da je smer l-ose od S ka
E , imaćemo

d   c 2 r  G  m  G2m   G2m  G  m  G2m

G m G m
 1 G  m  2
e e c r
 de c r  e c r
dr   e c r dr
dr   c2r 2



 c2r 2
 c c  2
r 
dv r , m 

Dodatno kratko rastojanje L1, koje je našem fotonu preostalo da pređe, nalazi se u blizini Zemlje. To je veoma

 
daleko od Sunca, tako da duž rastojanja L1 možemo smatrati da je brzina fotona c. Na osnovu toga, dobijamo da je
L1 2Gm 2 ES
kašnjenje našeg fotona na putu od S do E : t1   ln
c c3 rS

54 | P a g e
Isto kašnjenje imamo i na etapi od E do S , pa je ukupno kašnjenje na prvoj i poslednjoj etapi: 2t 1 
4Gm
c3
ln  
2 ES
rS

Ukupno kašnjenje duž putanje SM, MS biće: 2t 2 

4Gm
c3
ln  
2 MS
rS

4Gm 4MS  ES
Kašnjenje duž cele putanje, od Zemlje do Marsa i nazad, biće t d  2t 1  2t 2  ln  247.4s
c3 rS2

(Google upit: Earth Mars Shapiro time delay)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay#Time_delay_due_to_light_traveling_around_a_single_mass

2Gm 4 x p  xe
Tu je data jednačina t  ln koja predstavlja kašnjenje signala duž putanje u jednom smeru (npr. od
c3 rS2

Zemlje do Marsa).
„xe is the distance along the line of flight from the Earth-based antenna to the point of closest approach to the Sun,
and xp represents the distance along the path from this point to the planet.“

55 | P a g e