DELPHI4Test2014 PaintBrushWin3.1 ¦ Jan2022 UNIVERSUMS HISTORIA | 2011V4 ¦ 2022I18 | aproduction | Sen uppdat vers: 2023-10-27 YMD ¦  HumanRight is a knowledge domain


content · webbSÖK äMNESORD på denna sida Ctrl+F   SubjectINDEXall fileshelpStart DISPOSITION


HOW UNIVERSE HISTORY BEGAN .. From Windows 3.1 .. on the first computer editions .. MsWORKS 4.0 .. the best .. soon [after a rough decade] killed by New Microsoft [ 2008 MsWORKS banned ] ..

The Final Connection ¦


   Trying to explain Natural Phenomena

— from a point of view where the whole of its Book of Knowledge was NOT observed.


6Jan2023 —— Firefox Reads Symbol ¦ closets before:

Do not use Firefox web reader — cannot read Symbol, all first UH-documents produced with MicrosoftWORD2000 convenient type pi with Ctrl+Shift+p for pi, etc.for UH documents: Firefox vandalizes it.

— Mozilla Firefox web reader seems to have been created and intended solely for business reports — no conventional scientific unitive literature Symbol Font.

— Funny why Firefox reads Times New Roman too .. maybe the creators forgot to exclude that one too, in advising a Symbol Unicode for EVERY font. High IQ:

No TRADITIONAL SCIENCE ARCHIVE readouts in Firefox. Very educated personnel. Broad-sighted an so. It is such a joy.  Much science. Archives.


TheFinalConnection ¦ Dmax ¦ TheConstruct ¦ AllNatural ¦ DisClaim ¦ CheopsRectangleMATH ¦ LGD ¦ Deduction ¦ Hubble1929 ¦ ExperimentalConfirmations ¦ PlanckEquivalents ¦

Introduction ¦ MULTIPLEcPROOF ¦ MULTIPLEc ¦ MACcRef ¦ TheTEXPLAN ¦ TheSolarEclipses ¦ ThePlanckWay ¦ TheEinsteinError ¦ ProvingTheEclipses ¦ Gpotential ¦ Suns4 ¦

LightAndGravitation ¦ Results ¦ AminorTermConflict ¦ crREF ¦ Nature2022 ¦ DivergenceConvergence ¦ SolarCycle ¦ StarBASE ¦

ThePerihelionPrecessions ¦ ExplainingCoriolisPrecession ¦ ThePoint ¦ CausalNewton ¦ IncreasingTemperaturePressure ¦ SaturatedLightField ¦ TheExplanation ¦ rPdMATH ¦

TwienAffection ¦ CoriolisResolution ¦ AgainInConclusion ¦ ConcludingAllKeplerMath ¦ PrecessionEnergy ¦ ArguePoints ¦ POINT ¦ THEvDcRelation ¦ Newtons3inShort ¦ PotentialBarrier ¦

ExplainingTheDynamics ¦ FirstLIGHT ¦ UnderstadingActionReaction ¦ KeplerMomentumBasics ¦ GeDith ¦ APPLICATIONS 1-4¦ ThePrecessiveSTATEargument ¦

PerihelionPrecessionRotationalCenter ¦ CENTbyLightTime ¦

CaseClosed ¦ StefanBoltzmannDetails ¦ TheCircleArgument ¦ DynamicsExplanation ¦ ButLOOK ¦ Explanation ¦ SuperPositionPrinciple ¦ Basic ¦ TwoArguments ¦ Sections1234 ¦

TheEddingtonForm ¦ TheWikipediaEinsteinForm ¦ BasicEPSmath ¦ TheEddingtonArgument ¦ RelativisticMass ¦ Testified ¦ LocalGdominance ¦ ThermoElGraDis ¦ REGULARc ¦ Number5 ¦

TheComplete ¦ TheExperiment ¦ Experiment ¦ AllKeplerMath ¦ PhysicsFirst ¦ PhysicsFirstMATH ¦ STATE ¦ GripDeep ¦ THEcrFACTORS ¦ PressureMinMax ¦ TheGeneralREF ¦ ByQuality ¦

BasicMathRanks ¦ TheMath ¦ FormallyKeplerMath ¦ CalCardRef ¦ TheRESULT ¦ CalculatingKeplerAnomalistic ¦ DecisiveParam ¦ AnomalisticPeriod ¦ Compressed ¦ IAUtestDETAILS ¦

TheENDresult ¦ Examination ¦ RelatedMath ¦ TheGtest ¦ TheElectricConstant ¦ TestingOtherCandidates ¦ IterativeConstantTest ¦ RedShiftIssues ¦ TheGPSexample ¦

DeducedConnections ¦ VEERING ¦ PEPlanckEquivalents¦ TWI ¦ SRTN ¦ TheMisconception ¦ TheAbsoluteMETRIC ¦

Appendix ¦ TheNeutronSquareBreakThrough ¦ TheStarAnvil ¦ TheIAUtest ¦ ConstantPRECISION ¦ SpaceElectricalResistance ¦ HowIsTemperatureGENERATED ¦ Rex ¦

CentralEnergyMachine ¦ HowTEMP ¦ ComptonEffect ¦ ModernDegenerationPressure ¦ PULSARS ¦

Reason ¦ UnitedNations ¦ OurHistory ¦ HISTORY ¦ S ¦ content ¦


How it all started .. on one of the first commercially available computers: Windows 3.1, Compaq Presario — with printer and a Floppy Disc, Diskettes ..1.4 MB .. it was fantastic ..

PaintBrush — Windows 3.1 — The Original:

UniverseHistory WOULD DEFINITELY NOT HAVE EVOLVED WITHOUT PaintBrush — the discovery of The Natural Chart of The Atomic Masses — as Matched by Experimental Measure: The Neutron Square


The outnumbering of modern academic ideas in nuclear and cosmological physics (1800+) — please share a disclaimer: search for, non yet found (Nov2022):


EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURE ATOMIC MASSES — that made it, most definitely



NeutronSquareNeutronkvadraten ¦ The Elliptic FuntionsEllipsfunktionerna


ONE ASKS HONESTLY in concern of Microsoft’s so called development (after Bill Gates era); Why is the company shutting down natural scientifically useful computer developing TOOLS and replacing them with cropped, watered down copies of clearly program mutilated character? Test answer: Because ITS inducement lies not in HELPING but MANIPULATING. Conquering.

   Zero interest for knowledge: not one word HumanRight. Not a sound. Not a hint. Not a spell. Where is world jurisdiction — other than paid Bitches to these?



indexREGISTERDISPOSITION |  Teckenförklaringar: MusKLICKVänster | Höger:  |   — RullaMushjulet FRÅN | MOTDig:  |


Vidareutvecklat Från DELPHI 4 Test 2011




Neutron Square’s general morphology. A complementary more in detail description is given from The Neutron Square Break Through.

PaintBrush — Windows 3.1 — The Original:




TheFinalConnection:  Reason ¦ Our History ¦


”endowed with reason and conscience”. Say.

rJ — Checking on the Cheops Rectangle Basic Math ¦ Comparing on the Flinders Petrie 1883 Cheops Pyramid precisoon measures



TheEarthMASS ¦ CWON ¦ CAP ¦


The Kepler vr and Planck cr Momentum

— on the verge of explaining the planets’ perihelion precessions — on plain Kepler Math


The breakthrough came 1601-1612. Working with Tyge Brahe (1600) Johannes Kepler discovered Kepler’s Three Laws of planetary motion. The most central of them by mathematics as the Kepler (Area) Momentum

K = vr = 2A/T; = d²/T =(d/T)d = vd (=vr), also the Geometrical Displacement (bh/2=A):

   The central vector connecting Sun and Planet sweeps equal areas in equal times.

Adding the orbiting mass (m), the KeplerMomentum expresses the Angular momentum (mK=mvr), to us more universally known in the form of Planck constant (h) with v=c in h=mcr=6.626 t34 JS (The Neutron).

  With the deduced Light’s Gravitational Dependency from the Cheops Rectangle geometrical mathematics

— light divergence (c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S) in space is preserved a natural constant independent of gravitational influences (the atomic nucleus’ deduction Part II: gravitation’s fundamental form)

— there is apparently also a fix and solid corresponding Planck (area) Momentum: h=m·c0r: the Neutron (spin).

   On these premises (and the following historical parts with Galilei, Newton, Bradley, Euler and Planck) — apparently never deduced or even hinted at by the modern academic inducements (1800+) as a unitive foundation of the natural physics of the universe — this UniverseHistory was unfolded (beginning during the 1970s): as pouring water from one bucket to another (more or less: »with the greatest ease»).

   This author was — hence — never blocked by modern academic inventions — and hence neither invited to their corridors (6 points of available 5 — perhaps I’d better do it myself ..). And so, more freely, a set of analyzing and result comparing cross referring expeditions in mathematics and physics was launched. It had to be fought for — not so much in concern of the results as the TIME and SOLITUDE needed to get the work done.




The Atomic Nucleus’ Gravitational mass lies not in its volume — as resembling the mass of a drop of water — but in its unlimited toroidal hollow fractal structure:

— »shells» where the fractal principle defines an endlessly increasing density on an endlessly decreasing shell mass (PASTOM: hollow toroidal): m=n·m/n: n→∞: no smallest part



— the nucleus hollow toroid fractal surface (Planck structure constant ¦ [E=hf=(h/nFractal)nFractal·f=hFractal · fFractal]) is, or can so be understood to be immensely Hard.

   See details in deduction from h=mcr The Planck Ring,


— The Star Physics. Beginning from The Atomic Nucleus — on the foundation of The Energy Law.

EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS (as quoted from  SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN August 1987 and others) on the TNED deduced N3m20 Neutron-Proton atomic nucleus:


Collisions between Spinning Protons ¦ CONFIRMATIONS ¦ Spin directed colliding protons  TNED Dynamics cross reference on experimental results ¦ h = mcr — the atomic nucleus:


CWON:  mJ = 5.975 T24 KG Earth mass references

The modern academic QUARK  theory and nomenclature has no connection to the TNED deduced atomic nucleus. These are two completely different ideas. The atomic nucleus in TNED has no innate particles. The mathematical resemblance is simple: 1 = 1 = 1 000 000 / 1 000 000 = N/N = ANY/ANY = ∞ / ∞ . Simple elementary math.

The atomic nucleus — gravitation — is already standing on a fundamental zero base:

   the atomic nucleus — gravitationcannot be compressed. The Planck Structural Constant. Physics7th.


CWON through CAP:


IN ALL FURTHER TESTS we preferentially use this apparently very precised given Earth mass figure 5.975 T24 KG ±<3GRAM for tests wherever there is an offer for any the slightest chance of opportunity to question the result. The rJ feature has further connectivity in the following text.

   Every single material celestial body in the universe — shows exactly the same building up physical principle, Related Physics says:


TheEarthMASS ¦ CWON ¦ CAP ¦ The Galactic Building ¦ The Solar Systems in The Milky Way ¦ The Meteorite Proofs ¦ TheNEUTRONsquare

CAP: Concentric Atomic Production — CWON: Complete Whole Number-solution





   FROM the tiniest grain to the largest galaxy (The Distribution of Elements) — based on the deduced Planck constant h=mcr Neutron Toroid atomic nucleus (N3m20), certified by The Energy Law (GripDEEP ¦ GcQ): Energy — mass — cannot be created. Mass can only be transferred E=hf=mc² to different levels of usable energy. AS a given property of physics, it certifies that the atomic nucleus (TNED) already is standing on a »zero»: the fundamental property of gravitation: the atomic nucleus — gravitation as such — cannot be compressed. Gravitation as such apparently certifies the fundamental incompressibility of gravitation’s fundamental element: the atomic nucleus: physics’ seventh principle (PASTOM: principle structure of mass: never mentioned in modern academy).

— INSTEAD OF RELATING AND DEDUCING that — please do disclaim anyone who can — NATURE (physics) Modern academy consensus 1800+ INVENTED (BasicMATH) an idea of a cosmic limited mass (because it seemed embarrassing to the 1800+ IQ aces to assume that »God» — life; gravitation and electricity — was the inventor of intelligence .. the only known instance at the time ..) — although even modern academic personnel realizes that any creation of energy — mass — is a fundamental physical impossibility: LIGHT is massless. LIGHT develops no centrifugation. Not even on my best day. There is no trace of an inertial force in a celestial LIGHT’S gravitationally governed orbit or trajectory (The Eclipse experiments from 1919). But the Kepler-Newton kinetics have it: moving masses.

   THE CWON COMPLEX IN UNIVERSE HISTORY. Up to the general deduction of the celestial primary body building physics, there were no proofs in UniverseHistory of a direct mathematically provable ORDER IN THE isotopic distribution of Earth crust elements. TNED SUGGESTS IT TO BE SO from the deduced primary celestial body building (TEXPL) Dmax property. However, in investigating the 1900s available geological data on the Earth’s crust compositions (The Prime Data) — AtmosBiosLitos — the figures (CWON) appeared. And so a final quantitative Earth mass connecting proof did, and has now, arrived on the table (2020+).


   Especially light’s gravitational dependency LGD exhibits a center in the whole TNED deduced cosmic building.

— And it gives (real steel) further perspective on the different already established scientific domains.


The Contracted Construct:





   As 1800+ neither The Zero Integral responded very successfully inside the Modern Math High Quarter Corridors

— modern academic famous teaching system’s inability to recognize the difference between DIFFERENCE 0-1 and DIFFERENTIAL: the point (xyz), the Form For Zero: nothing —

further Inventions 1800+ in Logic had to be consented for The modern Merit Student to Earn its Job Favor in participating the general destruction[‡] of the Earth Global environment 1800+

   30% forest area removed by 2000 from 1800 — after only 200 years of ardent inventory strives (ForestWORL2012).

   And still counting, Nov2022 (GlobalWatchersData).

— It seems obvious that Modern Academic Thinking does not understand the Role of The Chlorophyll Agency:

— »THAT our brains were developed on credit from Chlorophyll Agencies on SunLight, is nonsense».

— »That is why we keep chopping the population down».

— »We will do fine without».

   Collecting sunlight for LIFE STRENGTH AND SUPPORT HEALTH PROVISION for all species — ended 1812

(adopted IPCC preference value here in UniverseHistory). Ever since, it has apparently been the subject of looting and sacking — for business and industrial profit. 30%. 200y. From undisturbed 3Gy Brain Constructor Development. Say again. Come again: Stop The Madness. End it. Finish it. Execute it. Vaporize Its Atom.

   Enlightened Humans don’t kill alive Leaf&Needle. No mother god loving way.




   Summing all the impressions collected on that subject and object in UniverseHistory (CheopsATLAS):

   IT WAS BUILT — apparently as a testifying monument of universal mathematics and physics as the most present prominent alternative explanation if nothing can disclaim that candidate (besides too, even worse, in a geologically dim history we cannot prove today, and even more worse: by a technology definitely not present in our time). It was for us to find — verify — as a »The Corresponding fundamental universal proof of Naturally Deductive Physics». But in our time, on credit of the established 1800+ society ideas of intelligence and nature, the bare possibility of any other source of intelligence than modern academy’s own 1800+, the alternatives are constantly denied. Perhaps it safest to burn the bible too.

(Because, as it seems: IT apparently HAS a very original strongly suggested connection. Compare TheClaim).


 All natural constants:

MODERN ACADEMY: Say something preferentially intelligent.


Is there anything at all inside the 1800+ Modern Academy Consensus IQ Elite that IT did NOT turn its back on, starting to INVENT ITS universe, instead of DEDUCING it[‡1][‡2]?


Give us one example. That would be encouraging.

Come again. Show the math. Dazzle us.


SWEDEN 2018 — once a placid place .. and growing ..

Sweden is exaggerating its further global governmental care for Universal Animal Rights .. MustBuyBook.


— VEGETATION — Leaf&Needle — was apparently intended — nervous system construct — for maintenance of basic biological NATURAL HEALTH CARE.

— NOT for any kind or sort of industrial scale energy consumption or business profiting: NOT for Trafficking Humanity, but Developing it. Say again:

— What replaces the chemical reduction? 3Gy of undisturbed natural evolution, no cuts, up to 1800. 200 years later: more than 30% reduced forest area.

— »We’ll do fine with 70% for the developed 100 — we can always compensate with modern academic medical Juice». Have a nice Mad day.



Is that your best shot? Killing. Looting and Sacking. Technology for Destruction. Say again.

UN. United Nations. In a Universe. Say.


See further details on the provable Petrie-CHEOPS issue in


   To be noted: the proof relies on a 100% on the Golden Section Paragon geometrical mathematics;

   There is no THEORY here — only the 1883 Flinders Petrie measuring reports under the looking glass of corresponding explaining geometric — illustrated — mathematics. Meaning:

   It holds, all of it — or not at all. So: Take your time.


As certified by quantities: any argument is welcome that can disclaim the proofs:

Searched for, none yet found.



DO DISCLAIM — on the collected results in UniverseHistory

BECAUSE WE ARE still FAR FROM HAVING COMPLETE DETAILED PROOFS on the final count down Connection to the Cheops Building ..

Or — the building a such, and the Flinders Petrie 1883 measures, and their CheopsATLAS proven equivalents are compelling evidence as such. But still 2022 without proof of the connecting Constructor and its place and location in human history


The proofs we have: BioEk1-10, CAP, CWON, Advanced primitive bio-chemical matrices including direct meteorite proofs showing the same basic universal principle,

Atomic masses matching experimentally measured — deduction of Periodic System on Kepler resonances — and what follows on The K-cell Heat Physics, with further:

   The Neutron Square — proving and explaining modern academy’s invented primitive idea of nuclear physics

   The 100% Photosynthesis machine — solid cyclic bio mass with zero oxygen production, on which the whole Earth biological complex has eveolved


CheopsRectangleMATH: Deduction



Geometric-mathematical proof: c0 cannot be destroyed — but 1800+ modern academy invented ideas [BasicMATHranks]

blocking any related mathematical/physical deduction:



Static and Expansive/Contractive Light’s Gravitational Dependency [the different possible states, all by math, of an expanding/contracting — or standstill — universal mass: our K-cell physics in UH] — apparently a completely unknown concept AS SUCH in Modern Quarters: Light’s top velocity divergence c0 cannot be destroyed.

     Apparently meaning:

   Never created. Indestructible.

   The general 1800+ invented modern academy idea of a CREATION — some »ultimate Beginning» — is a delusion. If claimed, it becomes an exercised oppression, forcing the individual into depressive existential ideas on the origin of its own nature. Quite the opposite of HumanRight recognition. Physics First Principle.


The Graphical Function — through y = √ 1 – x² : allowing |  1 — x²  |   :



   The term »Cheops Rectangle», was so coined here in UH because the source of the central (Galilean used expression) bd=h² led back to its first mentioning through the ancient Greek references in geometry: The Cheops Pyramid. As however seen in the 5 basic math equations — square roots, the harmonic triangles, the complex algebraic foundation and its deduction, light’s gravitational dependency — none of these are mentioned or related as (so) connected, as known here, in the modern academic teaching system.

— Discovering these basics (1980+), searching for corresponding parts in available library literature, was like discovering an enormous Treasure, completely unknown to present thinking: never mentioned.


Light’s Gravitational Dependency: DisClaim ¦ CeopsRectangleMATH ¦ Deduction

See also more compressed in Physics General Explanation



Figure 1


DOTTED — modern academy: this overall Concept is apparently unknown in modern quarters. See also Potential Barrier.

RELATED PHYSICS — TNED, CheopsRectangleMath, GripDEEP:

Light Divergence — linear propagation of light in free space — follows a local gravitational potential

w² = Gm2/r. m2 is the central gravitating mass, r the distance from its gravity center, G the universal gravitation constant: During the instrumental epoch 1960-1999, and still, in many references given as 6.67 t11 JM/[KG]².





   The CHEOPS RECTANGLE MATH directly shows — with c0 constant preserved independent of gravitation,

c/c0 = (1 w²/cc0) — why neither Einstein nor Schwarzchild could reach the deducing conditions:

   Modern Academy 1800+ invented/adopted ideas of physicsapparently with zero solidity in our practical physical universe apparently ON A SPARKLING MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATION — which consolidated — SO by drift, not plan — a banning of any reasonable explanation to the nature of gravitation and light.

   Not even close.


Deduction: LGD ¦ CHEOPS 


Light’s gravitational dependency

RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS — consequences pertaining to The deduction of the electric charge Q (RELATED Physics 7 Principles)

basic force equivalent:


Fc0=ma=m(c0/dT)=constant ; minimum m on a maximum c = c0 = Fc0dT/m = a·dT = c0 ; divergence counts in any space point P and has no traveling property: no mass:

a = c0/dT;  related physics has no divergence differential dc0»): c0 is a natural constant, independent of mass. Then a force rank of the form can be understood to hold as a form for Light’s (Divergence’s) Gravitational (Convergence) Dependency, Fc0 = Fc + FG : gravitation opposes — or governs: or defines — the local divergence.

   Then a corresponding energy rank (E=Fd) equivalent appears from the substitution (Δs) with a metric interval Fc0Δs = FcΔs + FGΔs as the

basic energy equivalent:

Ev = Ec + EG = mv² = mc² + mw² ; v² = c² + w² = cc0 ¦ w² = Gm2/r ;

F = ma = Gm2m/r², Fr = mar = Gm2m/r, Fr/m = ar = Gm2/r = [M/S²]M = [M/S]² = w².

CHEOPS RECTANGLE: bd = h² : w=h ¦  b/h = h/d ; bd=h²:



w/c = (c0c)/w  ¦  w2 = cc0c2  ¦  v/c0 = c/v          ¦  v2 = cc0                       ;

w2 + c2 = v2       ¦  c2 = v2w2  = cc0w2                                                 ;

c2 = cc0w2      ¦  c2 = cc0 (1 – w2/cc0)                ¦  c = c0 (1 – w2/cc0)       ;


c/c0 = (1 – w2/cc0)                                                             ; compare Einstein and Schwarzchild : from THEIR MATH came THE ONSET : »find a more reasonable explanation», please.


c2cc0                           =  w2                                       ; 

c2cc0 + (c0/2)2            = (c0/2)2w2                             ;

(c – c0/2)2                       = (c0/2)2w2                             ;

c – c0/2                           = √ (c0/2)2w2                          ;

c                                     = c0/2 + √ (c0/2)2w2                ;

c                                     = c0/2 + c0/2√ 1 – 4w2/c02          ; light’s gravitational dependency — FULLY RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS. No relativity theory.

c/c0                                 = (1/2)(1 + √ 1 – 4w2/c02)          ; from c0 to c0/2 ; w² = cc0 — c²  ¦  the [ half ] circle, radius c0/2

c/c0                                 = (1/2)(1 –  √ 4w2/c02 – 1)         ; from c0/2 to 0 ..; w² = c² — cc0 + c0²/2   ¦  the uniform hyperbola

c/c0                                 = (1/2)(1 ±  |1 – 4w2/c02|)        ; the  Φ = FI  arangement for automatic ±-selection: w/[c0/2] = a : Φ = INT[1–(|a—1|–[a—1])/2] giving

c/c0                                 = (1/2)(1 + ϕ√|1 – 4w2/c02|)       ; ϕ = (–2Φ+1) ¦ Φ=0 (+) from c0 to c0/2, then Φ=1 (–) from c0/2 to 0.

We incorporate this formality typically into a spread sheat’s CalCard-structure for convenient access — if needed. c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S.


SolenT2022.ods  T2  A55 — use, develop and extend as wished. Light’s propagation velocity here at Earth distance 1AU from Sun.


   These resulting comparing expressions exposes — apparently in every mathematical and physical detail — the corresponding related primitive Modern Academic Inventions (Einstein, Schwarzchild — both limited primitive ideas of a so called »closed universe»).

   And These resulting comparing expressions also apparently concludes: An — apparently provable in detail — perfect match to the quantities measured (1883) by the Flinders Petrie working group on The Cheops Pyramid (and others nearby) — on The Dmax property by Present Earth Mass (apparently also connecting CWON through CAP).

   Beat that one: the rJCIRCLE and the Flinders Petrie 1882 Cheops Pyramid measures — and the highly possible (dim, obscured, forgotten, impossible to prove) origin of Script: »TheConstructivePLAN». Please do disclaim the one who can. We will surrender immediately. Absolutely.





The rJ — RadiusEarth (Sw. Jorden) — is our Earth mass 5.975 T24 KG perfect sphere taken on the deduced Planck constant Neutron atomic nucleus on its circumscribed regular block maximum density 1.82 T17 KG/M³, the Dmax.

Investing (2020) the match further, led to the complete Flinders Petrie 1883 asserted measures as accounted for in CheopsATLAS.

— The geometrical PLAN is — or can apparently be understood to be as shown and deduced in detail — all from The Golden Section Paragon and its spiral form with its central points and crossings: all geometrical math.

   See The7.

   As strong as this provability is: it DID come there (what are you talking about ..), AT its site (I don’t understand a shit of what this person is talking about ..). The only way to disclaim That One (excuse me: the fact that IT is standing there, as IS), is to show (one single is enough) one example on the Petrie measures and this investigation of them, that does NOT communicate WITHIN the given Petrie tolerances. Show that, and we can all go home: disclaim the plan and start fucking the pyramid too as apparently everything else has already been fucked:

— The Cheops Pyramid in Giza Egypt. Show that. And we will surrender immediately.



These however — as they have become here, yet — testamentary proofs have no known foundation of questioning, as found. Not by mathematics. Not by physics. But we would welcome such, if found. Please share.


But — again — the corresponding historical/geographical/geological decisive proofs lie (still) in the dark. That has now become the real steel of the challenge. With more to come.



Edwin Hubble 1929+  ——  an expanding universe

FROM THE MOMENT WHEN THE RED SHIFT PHENOMENA[‡] OF AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE APPEARED (1929, after several measures when Edwin Hubble finally established our present idea of an expanding universe, preceded by other astronomical contributors; Friedman 1922, Lemaître 1927 and others) THE GENERAL MODERN ACADEMIC TASK WAS TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THIS EXPANSION.





Given The Seven Principles of Physics in Universe History [APARC, FUNTOP, POM, NEONS, GRIP, DEEP and PASTOM], only Newton’s Three known in modern quarters, the rest gave itself up with not much resistance: like pouring water from one bucket to another. No big deal. However: It took its sweet time. Big Bucket.




Explaining the origin of universal expansion

FOR UNIVERSE HISTORY (TNEDbegin some earliest 1976 [or 1972]) AS BASED ON A GENUINE DEDUCTION OF THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS — gravitation and electricity: Planck constant h=mcr in explaining the origin of expansion — was a comparatively EASY quest compared to Modern Academic measures — where the population had to INVENT all kinds of stuff as it went along (BasicMATHranks ¦ ExperimentalCONFIRMATIONS).


In Modern Academy (1900+) — no naturally deduced atomic nucleus — the idea (soon) appeared of ”unlimited density”. The idea of ”a singularity” (»a first pointless nothing with unlimited density» ¦ Penrose 1965, ref., Stephen Hawking COSMOS, Sw., KOSMOS 1994s61m ¦ Penrose-Hawking 1970, s62) soon became popular — all costumed by a growing famous Relativity Idea. But: Light does not interact with mechanics. In UniverseHistory it is The Light-liberty clause in related physics: light paths does not develop centrifugation on applied gravitation (SolarEclipsesExpeditions1919+). See The Vic-Error. That was the Einstein population’s first mistake — although the whole scientific community 1881+  was proven that the speed of light on Earth is not affected by the Earth’s movement at all (M&M: Experiments from 1881) — also clarified from 1725 by James Bradley on the discovery of Aberration (first Light’s Gravitational Dependency observation — still not very much explainable in terms of modern academic nomenclature). A »light’s gravitational dependency» (LGD) was never observed in modern quarters. Not at all.


James Bradley’s discovery 1725 of the Aberration phenomena ¦ TheSolarEclipses




The modern academic idea soon turned out into »an exploding expanding singularity» — from an unlimited state of unlimited density. Very deep penetrating and explaining math — ending on the sensational construction of atoms too (The Pythagorean Theorem was also created, too, as a bonus, along with Planck constant, very high IQ math stuff). Matter appeared on the scale of intergalactic nebulae. General gas masses were spread out all over in our universe.

   The idea soon had to appear, that it had to be by SPONTANEOUS CONTRACTION that these gas masses started to pinpoint specific mass centra — as the expansion continued. And from there, fast Hollywood forward, an early general Kant Nebular hypothesis appeared (together with general star history evolution);

   Earth and the other planets must have originated from planetesimal »downfall» from such a nebula debris (The Craters of the Moon and others — and the associated origin of impulses of planetary rotations). And further, by specific theories of our Sun, that »our 2,8 T22 KG water on and in Earth Crust had to have come from the outside».

   That so, because it had become a consensus in modern academic merited intelligence that »SUN was too hot at the start to allow such water on Earth».

   Very deep Early Insolation Insights (BBC was there filming it all too — but you must accept they demand cookies consent before you will have access to the content — modern general social global media establishment educative LogIn procedures: in order for The Pet to look into the shop’s windows on its merchandise, IT must LogIn).

   The conditions were better year 1311.


The — apparent — only valuable TECHNOLOGY having developed 1800+ is the one of INSTRUMENTATION: non destructive technological enterprise. We find it today wherever humans and nature work together[‡] — with zero environmental hazard: no killing of alive vegetation.

   WHERE — united nations — is JURISDICTION on planet Earth — other than Trafficking Payed Business Enterprise Bitches? Not one word HumanRight. Not a sound. Not a hint. Not a spell.


”.. every individual and every organ of society .. constantly in mind ..”, ”..of the greatest importance ..”, ”.. foundation of freedom, justice and peace ..”.  Foundation. Where? Say again.

   CLAIMS outside a 24/7 HumanRight regocnition ”Whereas the recognition ..” has only power to destroy.

   There is no exception.



EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS: revised and enhanced more detailed description Nov2022





MULTIPLEc ¦ TheSolarEclipses ¦ ThePerihelionPrecessions ¦ TheGPSexample ¦



The GcQ Theorem ¦ The Euler Equivalents ¦ GripDeep ¦ STATE ¦  RECKONING LAWS FOR THE quantity independent ENDLESS ¦ FirstPRINCIPLE — related physics and mathematics as deduced




Many people (especially inside modern academic quarters 1800+), have — apparently — no idea at all of how primitive the modern academic adoption of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity really is — AS will be related by detail in this rebellious UH (UniverseHistory) production — for the relaxed mathematical joy of already established PhD:s, I’m afraid. Namely any provable close relationship between present academic idea and its provable connection to nature (physics — with zero destructive enterprise):


Not even close[‡].

— IF the reader can give solid scientific opposing arguments — mathematics and physics, no messing — we will surrender immediately. No problem.


The reason is — of course — »experimental proofs». So high in »IQ dignity», that modern academic pioneers simply did not care to look for more rational — reasonable: deducible — explanations.


   light paths does not develop centrifugation — which excludes the Kepler-Newton classic celestial orbits:

   Kepler-Newton classic celestial orbits — KeplerMomentumBasics — only apply to KINETICS: objects with mass.

   And light — its actual path — has not that property. As measured and deduced. See TheSolarEclipses.


That part was apparently reserved for any »UniverseHistory», or similar, wherever it may be found: Related mathematics and physics — by comparing results, unless we did miss something important;

The Planck Equivalents explain the most of the complex inside the most prominent modern academic features. But apparently where however the present high educative standard of global priority favors a more Hi Tech oriented modern academic thinking, I’m afraid[‡].

The GPS Example in explicit is also a prominent reminder.

PlanckEquivalents: AnswersCHART

1–(u/c)² = 1/[(UQ/m0c²) + 1]   ;  m0c²(1/[1–(u/c)²] – 1) = UQ = (E) ; 


m0c2 = mccu = constant = Eno mass is created, no mass is destroyed  but modern academy constantly fucks with it:


The voltage U produces a separation between a MoveQ (+Δm, measured [school physics] with a thread-ray-tube) and a RestQ (—Δm, never experimentally measured in the history of physics, as known). The sum i zero. Physics contains no net mass increase caused by motion. No way. Not in any physics branch.



Deducing the electric charge — not represented in modern corridors ¦ PotentialBarrier ¦ TheNeutronSquareBreakThrough ¦ CheopsRectangleMATH ¦ PhysicsFirstMATH ¦ GcQ 


Electric particle accelerator technology is limited by the electric field’s limited sensing feedback-change through the limited speed of light c0.

Mechanic particle accelerating physics has no such c-limiting [m/R] physical properties. But modern academy seems to ignore the fact:

— »At the present, we are too occupied with our c-Dolls-House-Theater issues to be able to show interest in anything else». CLOSED, the sign says. 1800+.


NO EXPERIMENTAL controlling method


Because there is no physical known method to distinguish the impulse (linear momentum) m0v from mRvR, also the interpretation of the instrumentally measured impulse and energy quantity from impulse-energy measurements can neither be resolved on a mathematical basis.


E(32J) = m0(3.6c0)2  =  E(32J) = (3.6)2m0(c0)2 .............    the MULTIPLE c syndrome

cosmic radiation experimentation and observation issues (3.6c0, see c02p6)


There is no (yet known) way in present known science to control velocities exceeding

c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S: the equivalence aspect cannot be resolved. Question still open.



— A MECHANIC E(32J) = m · (3.6c)² contains exactly the same energy components as an ELECTRIC E(32J) = 3.6²·m · c².

— While the Electric alternative has a well 1900s developed technology in science, the 3.6c has no measuring technology at all.

— (Present) Earth science technology is (physically, and mathematically) blind to the mechanic component.



introduction —— TNED ¦ FOCUS MATERIEN 1975 ¦ Multiple c in modern academy

THE MULTIPLE c SYNDROME measured cosmic radiation


Enhanced Article from the original Swedish original (MULTIPLE c)



INCOMING COSMIC PARTICLES (mostly protons, as claimed) hit the Earth’s atmosphere, sometimes releasing quite hefty energy surges (”capable of lifting the Cambridge Astronomy 1978 book one meter over the table”, the 16 Joule example, BA1978.s274.sp2mn). As the particle fragments have been identified during the 1900s research, measuring methods have resulted in expeditions using the data for further comparing results. One of these uses the my-meson half life decays from high altitude cosmic impacts. Knowing the average µ-meson half life (t0 = 2µS = 2 t6 S), the altitude (h) where the (N) impact appears, and some Earth ground based instrumentation to count (A), the A particles reaching Earth’s surface exhibit comparing mathematics — and claims.



Summing the halving t0 = 2µS periods of the µ-mesons as they decay from the cosmic particle impact, a final number A of the initial N are registered by a ground station. The exercise in the different established textbooks[‡] was aimed to demonstrate the validity of Einstein’s theory of relativity — on the electromagnetic compromised precisely so narrow-minded idea that ”nothing travels faster than c”. In related physics it apparently blocks a more rich cosmological explanation:

   a v>c experimental controlling instrumentation does not exist in present scientific quarters. Further in MULTIPLEcPROOF.




SolenT2022.ods T4  A25



Calculated quantities according to the Quoted text book example — further explained in MULTIPLEc.



SolenT2022.ods T4 A13


On the exact same mathematical end expression, however derived from completely different ideas of basic physics

The Introduction tabled values show quantities from a textbook source. It reports cosmic radiation experiments and observations aimed at »proving Einstein’s theory of relativity». However, as we see — the explaining  Planck equivalents, not mentioned in modern quarters — do show the mathematically manipulative course allowing an alternative explanation with multiple c — on exactly the same instrumentally measured and observed impulse and energy quantity. In modern corridors, one favors the idea of »time dilation», the specific parts above/below in the equations, to compensate for »(we cannot accept) travel faster than c». However, the standard classical Newton-Planck mechanical way exposes wider alternatives — that apparently has still more qualities not known in modern quarters. Further explained and illustrated below in MULTIPLEc. Exact same quantities on exact same expressions.


The proving, explaining, and connecting ranks:


vR = v√1–(vR/c)² = h/T0 ...........  v√1–(vR/c)² = h/T0 ¦ Related physics Planck equivalents explanation — deduced as related.

tR = T0√1–(vR/c)² = h/v ...........  v√1–(vR/c)² = h/T0 ¦ Modern academy — no correspondence.


   Modern academy would have had a more profitable status today if it had listened to Max Planck at the time[‡]. It didn’t.

   The two comparing ranks above apparently make the Planck equivalent solution sovereign: IT cannot be related from present academic thinking. No way.


The Planck equivalents explain the phenomena from a multiple c standpoint, also in detail to the origin of the most high energy (16 Joule) observed impacts. See MULTIPLEcPROOF and further below from MULTIPLEc.







Equating a particle accelerator energy equivalent to an ideal classic mechanical spouse (PlanckEquivalent) on a multiple c basis has a limit. An exact u=c0 can never be acquired. It would demand a corresponding m →∞ = ∞ · m0 as the accelerated particle’s velocity approaches the c-limit endlessly. The particle accelerating system transfers increasing mass to the (velocity u) accelerated particle as the accelerating energy increases (E/c²=UQ/c²=[m – m0]).


An energy equative transformation between the two different domains — mechanic and electric — can be accomplished provided the two different domains expose identical impulses (linear momentum p = mv = m1v1 = m2v2):



See deduction in The u-form. [UQ = c²(m–m0) .. Q with m0 is accelerated to u with m by U ..]


m0/mR = √ 1–(vR/c0)² ¦  m0/m = √ 1–(v/c0)² ¦ (Deduction, original):

The Planck Equivalent certifies the transfer is based on a summed conserved zero-changed mass — no relativity aspects:

   no mass is created, no mass is destroyed in an accelerating closed electric system  PlanckEQUIVALENTS.




The PlanckEquivalent explaining origin (it better):

Original Debris


The textbook quote gives no specification or mentions an origin of the stated 0.995c, nor of any observed energy quantity connecting the cosmic radiation impact example.

— The PlanckEquivalet on equal impulses (linear momentum) determines a corresponding mechanical — no electric acceleration devises — on the order of 10c (9.962460869c) with the given 0.995c.


These two are however independent of the PlanckEquivalentResulting connections. The particle mass makes nothing to the u/v = m0/m relation. With a single neutron (mechanic) for a single proton (electric, Q=e) the least possible corresponding particle accelerator energy is involved — some UQ = 8.8 GeV. The Cambridge Astronomy book mentions (BA1978s.274sp2m) that the main part of the observed impacting particles ”have energies around 108 — 109 eV”. That wold be reasonable for a neutron (mechanic, PlanckEquivalent v>c) in a resembling particle accelerator energy test on a proton.


But how about the 10c PlanckEquivalent?


This is the TNED calculating K-cell chart with its possible solutions (from part of the article in Earth Mass and The Andromeda test document, see from SandTRAVEL):




SolenT2022.ods  T4  N60



See MULTIPLEc on the full theoretical illustrated explanation: how the ejecta (our experimental mechanical neutron or neutron bead) works in TNED theory.


Using the approximated curve equations:

Lowest Possible Available Mechanic Ejection velocity — traveling from RimGRB:s to Earth:


v/c0                    = Distance/[NOW — pastORIGINALdebris(NonDecayedFastNeutrons)]Gy·T9·365.25·86400


Distance            = Past2/3·2.39567 T25 M


In the TNED/K-cell default the rc0-line intersects (ideally) on/with the K-cell expanding universe’s RIM on a Last Building Galactic Point. After that point no further divergence (GRBs) will be possible: K-cell Dmax neutron mass entering positive divergence (c>0), and thereby a beginning neutron decay (K-cell Heat physics). That is, the y = 0.3944x straight slope. After that point the complete birth of the new period universe is finished.


HOWEVER: Neutron decay will be dependent on HOW FAST its J-bodies will enter the positive (rc0) space: there are ejecta AWAY from K-cell center (neutron decays delays), and also ejecta TOWARDS it (neutron decay speeds up). The rc0-limit just states the ideal c>0 starting point.


The only possible way for a type 10c neutron safely dormant and not decaying until entering v<c to arrive to Earth NOW (K-cell age 20.82 Gy, TNED says) would be IF its host GRBs have sufficient delay — margin — to satisfy an active ejecta region in a past originalDebris on the order of



 19Gy. That is, backwards in the past from our NOW some 1,8Gy, on a traveling distance of 1.7 T26 M. The time window here would lie between 16.3Gy and around 19Gy with a v/c0 possible spread between 3.5 and (maybe) 15 (19.6Gy) — corresponding to (u=vR)/c0 values

0.960c0(UQproton=2.4 T9 eV) to 0.998c0(UQproton=1.4 T10 eV).



SolenT2022.ods  T4  M49



Possibly. But that is also only in concern of only ONE single neutron.


Enhancing the scene with regular neutron beads — thousands and more on a preserved Dmax, until impact — the particle accelerator resemblance completely looses meaning:

The16Jcalc: QUOTING the source


   The 16 Joule example TNED solution with a v>c pacing neutron bead consisting of some 1-2 T10 neutrons — a corresponding one single Atomic (nuclear) particle with mass number A=1.6T10 — is a definite impossibility for any particle accelerator. The TNED maximum mass number for the heaviest possible atomic nucleus is 317. Lawrence Berkeley atomic masses charts show a present maximum mass number at 293 (118Ui293). The 16 J observed cosmic radiation energy impact on Earth’s top atmosphere is on that premise a complete impossible Earth laboratory particle accelerator comparing exercise.


A MECHANICAL SOLUTION however on the Planck Equivalent impulse (linear momentum) credit has better provisions for taking the ship into harbor.




SolenT2022.ods  T4  M45

UQ = 16.02 J: v=10c0 with a Ø6.0 t12 M wide neutron bead, above. Below:

UQ = 16.02 J: v=3.6c0 with a Ø8.8 t12 M wide neutron bead — less than average interatomic distance in a solid (2.5 t10 M).




Definitely no particle accelerator can do that — not because of the energy as such, but because of the limit of atomic nuclei mass. Atoms in our universe have a max mass number A = 300 compared to the above: billions. No way — not to mention the Problem of ionizing That one for particle acceleration. Not even Ever. No such physics exist.


The (LHC) Large Hadron Collider (Wikipedia, Particle accelerator, 23Dec2022) is said to be the present most powerful particle accelerator. It has a total capacity of 13 TeV = 13 T12 eV.

That is still a run of some 8 ten powers to go to match a 16 Joule = 1 T20 eV testing expedition.


   The reverse way is shut: Going IN THEORY from Earth laboratory particle accelerators to a (related TNED) cosmic-mechanical generated particle energy has no (here known) modern or other academic meaningful resemblance. Saying, TNED says:

   There is no deducing aspect, no relating aspect, no explaining aspect, no reasoning aspect at all: »we can reach them». But they cannot reach us:

   Light does not connect kinetics[‡].

   The details are so related and explained, in to the last atom. But modern academy apparently has not the idea of the concept. See also Moden Academic Multiple c.



There is plenty to pick from ..


c03p6 ¦ vEJECT ¦ Introduction ¦ OriginalDebris



NASA GRB map ¦ Hubble space telescope Galactic Deep image



Related physics

The K-cell contractive phase collects the same gravitational energy that later will cause recoil ejection after the initial K-cell detonation occasion in each new K-cell expansion phase. The TNED deduced expression is the same as the Escape Velocity form


v2 = 2Gm2/r


With m2 as the primary K-cell expanding Dmax J-body and Dmax = m2/(V=4πr3/3):


v = m21/3 · √(2G[4πDmax/3]1/3)


There (K-cell mass ca 4.15 T53 KG — Milky Way mass ca 2 T41 KG or ca T11 Sun masses) are some estimated ”hundreds of billions galaxies in the universe”.

   With a comparing scale from 10 Sun masses up to our Milky Way galaxy estimated 2 T41 KG — T 11 Sun masses — the ejected v/c0 ratio goes from 1 to 2 150.

   Our expedition on investigating MULTIPLEc on Earth atmosphere impacts (The 16 Joule example) needs at most some 15 (The 16 J).

   There is, hence, plenty to pick from.

   It should though be mentioned here that the observed masses in our visual universe — after their primary ejections, TNED says — is only a fraction 1/355 of the total K-cell mass distribution. See

DARK MATTER ¦ (The ThermoNuclear radiation pressure’s role for Dark Matter)

¦ Quotes on Dark Matter (up to 400 times more has been observed)

— in TNED explained as debris of huge amounts of SAND impossible to detect over huge interstellar distances — pushed outside high above the galactic halos from their (Suns4) thermo nuclear radiation pressure (Tgamma — apparently unknown in modern corridors: see also The Perihelion PrecessionsAllKeplerMath — explaining why and how).

   In modern academy, no theory exist by which to explain such debris.


In a raw calculation — our Sun mass roughly 2 T30 KG — its real steel primary ejecta mother mass would have had perhaps some at least 100 times greater mass in the luggage.


   Compare here (GALAXY FORMING — Recoil Picture) the resembling recoil water drop experiments and the photos that revealed (in strong light directed towards the camera lens) the high velocity tiny not immediately observed microscopic <1mM perfect spherical drops (as a spray) high above the more ordinary observed. Similar conditions should hold in the K-cell mathematical physics.





m0v = mRu :  v > c ¦ u < c : vMECHANIC uELECTRIC ¦ u = vR ¦ vR/c = 1/√ (c/v)2 + 1 PlankEquivalentReference

v>c : Ekin/UQ = (v/c)2/2[ –1 + 1/√1–(u/c)2]  = (v/c)2/2[–1 + 1/√1– 1/(1 + [c/v]2)] :



SolenT2022.ods  T4  A37

PLANCK EQUIVALENT IMPULSE (linear momentum p = mv = m1v1 = m2v2) TRANSFER APPLICATION — not represented in modern quarters.

Comparing theoretical proton particle accelerator impact example — on the mechanic m0v=mRu Planck equivalent transfer impact; Incoming neutron/proton with v>c theoretically PlanckEquivalent substituted by a  u<c  Earth laboratory proton particle accelerator. As the input accelerating voltage (U) increases, the energy fraction (Ekin=m0v²/2)/EQ also increases (on the branch of a hyperbola).

So: In any theoretical Quest on matching a corresponding Earth particle accelerator (u<c) observed energy (UQ) from a corresponding v>c cosmic occasion, it would not suffice to assume an equal electric E=UQ quantity for the mechanic/kinetic Ekin quantity. The Ekin quantity lies in any way higher — provided the same impacting impulses (linear momentum) holds. However (again) this type of mathematical physics has no (here known) modern academic representation: »The Modern c Coccon Association»: ”nothing travels faster than c” (»LogIn»). See also MultipleMACc.





IntroductionQuoting on the 16 Joule cosmic ray impact observation


SolenT2022.ods T4 M45 ¦  Dmax —— Solving the 16 Joule cosmic impact energy release observationProblem.


” Vi vet mycket lite om de kosmiska partiklar som bär energimängder större än 1019 eV, eftersom jorden får ta

emot så få sådana per dygn. Just dessa partiklar är emellertid mycket intressanta, eftersom de bär på energier

av en storleksordning som överträffar allt som kan åstadkommas av partikelacceleratorerna i våra jordiska

laboratorier. Energin 1020 eV är lika med 16 joule — tillräckligt för att lyfta denna bok en meter från bordet.”,

BA1978s274mn, Cambridge Astronomy.

Freely translated [see also LHC]:


WE know very little about the cosmic particles carrying energies greater than 1019 eV, because Earth receives so few of these per day. Especially these particles are however very interesting because they carry energies of a magnitude exceeding any achievable by the particle accelerators in our Earthly laboratories. The energy 1020 eV equals 16 Joule — sufficient to lift this book one meter from the table.





Cosmic radiation and Multiple c — the Swedish original stub ¦ explanation:


   MACcREF uses multiple c cosmological concepts:

   MAC cannot disprove a multiple c existence.

— TESTING a multiple c from cosmic ray observations

   suggests MAC has a primitive idea of physics:

   The result apparently includes MAC ideas a primitive.



Calculated quantities according to the Quoted text book example — ONLY  a single or few neutron/proton comparison is OK:



SolenT2022.ods T4 A13 ¦  Dmax


While modern academy has no theory and no experimental instrumental matching idea of a cosmological multiple c event — and so neither their possible physical phenomenal rejections — all such multiple c happenings can only be transferred to a corresponding present Earth science particle accelerator energy resemblance ¦ Introduction. Unaware — however — of such a mathematical transformation — The Impulse p=mv Planck Equivalents vR = v√1–(vR/c)², = h/T0 — modern academic idea uses a ”time dilation” method to compensate for the Not Possible measurable HigherThan c pace = Shorter TimeTravel;

tR = T0√1–(vR/c)², = h/v, is interpreted as »longer half life t0» in modern corridors. (So:) — The conditions were definitely better year 1311.

   The actual proof that multiple c does exist — then, from this cosmic ray exposure — relies on the exact same mathematics, on the exact same experimental observations, as the already familiar. However with a simple The multiple c related physics explanation apparently outside present academic quarters:


The proving, explaining, and connecting ranks — MULTIPLEcPROOF:

But in modern academy the explaining Planck Equivalents are unknown:


vR = v√1–(vR/c)² = h/T0 ...........  v√1–(vR/c)² = h/T0 ¦ Related physics Planck equivalents explanation — deduced as related.

tR = T0√1–(vR/c)² = h/v ...........  v√1–(vR/c)² = h/T0 ¦ Modern academy — no correspondence.


   Modern academy would have had a more profitable status today if it had listened to Max Planck at the time[‡]. It didn’t.

   The two comparing ranks above apparently make the Planck equivalent solution sovereign: IT cannot be related from present academic thinking. No way.


The Planck equivalents explain the phenomena from a multiple c standpoint, also in detail to the origin of the most high energy (16 Joule) observed impacts. See MULTIPLEcPROOF and further below from MULTIPLEc.


The experimental observations (Introduction) uses different methods to estimate and measure the released energies from incoming cosmic radiation (mostly identified as »high speed» protons [90%] and other [lighter] atomic nuclei [helium nuclei in majority]). The ranks above expose the different expressions explaining a corresponding relativistic (AnswersCHART) manipulative mathematics in comparison with the related and deduced Planck equivalents.

   No scientifically known instrumental method exists to reject the quest of possible multiple c.

   The electric charge’s mass-resistance proportionality excludes its part in mechanics and kinetics. Which also excludes any (present) experimental method to reject the existence of multiple c (present high speed experimentation is, what we know, limited to electric and magnetic properties: no kinetics):

   The TNED deduced K-cell physical mathematics has (far more) reasonable options in explaining the high energy cosmic ray particle impacts on a multiple c basis (The already familiar exemplified 16 Joule (T20eV) impact measure [BA1978s274]) — apparently way above the capacity of any established experimental particle accelerators.

   See further below i MULTIPLEc.



The Planck equivalents (as deduced in The original Swedish edition ;

u electrically accelerated velocity by c in a given fix gravitational potential: c varies with different such, see LGD):


f0/f         = √ 1–(u/c)2 ..................            PlanckEnergy’s FREQUENCY EQUIVALENT        in Qm changes with growing u

m0/m     = √ 1–(u/c)2 ..................            PlanckEnergy’s MASS EQUIVALENT                    in Qm changes with growing u

λ/λ0       = √ 1–(u/c)2 ..................            PlanckEnergy’s WAVELENGTH EQUIVALENT        in Qm changes with growing u


Compare (The v+ic error) the modern academically adopted (1905+)

— on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (1905+), Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations — »same c everywhere»:


T/T0      = √ 1–(v/c)2 ..................            time                 reduces with growing velocity v

m0/m     = √ 1–(v/c)2 ..................            mass                 grows with growing velocity v

d/d0       = √ 1–(v/c)2 ..................            length              reduces with growing velocity v


The v-form reflects Einstein’s vic-error: light propagation does not connect kinetics. Modern academy apparently does not understand that concept (»The c Cocoon Association» Friday Meetings: ”Nothing travels faster than c .. Nothing ..”, now during some 100 years [5200 Fridays]: DRIFT: Nothing is wrong with the intelligence, just the ability to realize its innate nature), although so fantastically clarified by the early Michelson and Morley interferometer experiments (1881+). Why? Apparently due to invented ideas — blocking a deduction. Not because of any kind of minor intelligence. Far from.



Basically the same exact mathematical ranks — but modern academy 1800+ apparently lost sight of DYNAMICS in gravitation and electricity (I’m afraid ¦ SolarEclipsesExpeditionResults1919+):

   Mechanics is NOT light propagation. But MAC invented a HYDRA (The v+ic error) in between. And so it began:

   WHILE the atomic nucleus is intrinsically free from inner particle constituents — gravitation’s fundamental mass form ¦ PotentialBarrier — modern academy has built a SUCH particle idea. And IT has apparently become »The foundation of the whole cosmic existential phenomena» — blocking the real steel explanations: These include — fully explain, or should if not — the modern part as a primitive — or not at all.


   In the light of related physics and its comparing results (The Neutron Square), it is obvious that the 1800+ modern academic idea prevents an explaining rational foundation (apparently also Illustrated). As such, and provided it (TheExplanation, whatever natural) is so free from flaws or misconceptions as it appears to be (Nature), the present academic way is apparently also provably LESS than primitive. It is directly destructive as it prevents the individual from a true, deeply and well relatable — harmonic : healthy — mathematical and physical realization. It is directly destructive as it does not lift a finger to break the destructive spell: education (TheLIST) on provably primitive ideas (gaining [looting and sacking] instead of sharing). Have your say.

   The most convenient for present academic status would be: this is all crap.

   Please share the insight: Even the worst of all stupid contributes to wisdom — appropriately apprehended.


MULTIPLEc: PlanckEquivalents ¦ Introduction  ¦ MULTIPLEcPROOF



Proofs of multiple c

The Cosmic Radiation






An impossible expedition — in a particle accelerator; only a mechanical [Planck Equivalent] v>c solution can solve the problem on equal impulses [linear momentum]: p = mv = m1v1 = m2v2



The GRB objects in related physics — screams from dying or new born? ¦ GRB ¦ Primary neutron bio-chemical matrices ¦ Chlorophyll and Hematine ¦ DivergenceIGNITION ¦ K-cellExpansion ¦ Dmax

The TNED deduced K-cell expansion physics involves successively ejected neutron masses from the initial Dmax ”BigBang” occasion — the pulsating contracting-expanding K-cell with a half period of some 336 Gy, TNED says. As earlier suggested — CWON from CAP ¦ Primary neutron bio-chemical matrices — all celestial bodies (named J-bodies in TNED cosmology) expose their topmost surfaces in the last (hydrogen + lower oxygen = ICE ¦ MACcREF) J-body mineralogy history on developing atomic binding matter — consisting of primary tight Dmax lying neutrons. As a J-body enters positive divergence in the K-cell expansion (Light’s Gravitational Dependency LGD), short heavy nuclear reactive energy surges appear from J-center (iron-core production). These inevitably involve J-body surface Dmax neutron ejections — with (very ¦ vREF) high mechanically caused ejection velocities. As these can be readily calculated from the TNED deductions, corresponding theoretical quantitative tests can be accomplished, comparing cosmological instrumental observations.

   CARING for the possible K-cell dimensions on the present universe observations (cosmic background radiation and others ¦ OriginalDebris), TNED results include calculations of reasonable and possible ejecta distance time travels on given ejecta velocities, composing, for test, a possible explanation to the observed 16 Joule cosmic ray energy observation — apparently otherwise impossible to explain by present Earth science technology instrumentation.

   The general idea in TNED (LGD) — forbidden in modern quarters — is that all macroscopic electromagnetic dynamics is in a mode OFF if v>=c — particles travels faster than local light divergence — or c<=0 — strong local gravitation does not allow positive divergence. In these cases, a neutron decay cannot be physically — macroscopically — related. That is: A Dmax neutron bead can travel practically unhindered (ZmrREF) if its mechanically caused velocity exceeds the local c, or the general top c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S. Also given its maximum tiny cross section of a such Dmax neutron bead, it has all possible profitable chances of traveling far through spaces during long periods of time without impacting on any other mass — until the actual impact (Earth atmosphere or other).

   So the end PLANCK EQUIVALENTS calculating solution becomes simple — with a corresponding (impossible) present Earth science technology particle accelerator (E=UQ) spouse IF the impact energy is especially large:


Calculated quantities according to the Quoted text book example — one single neutron/proton impact;



SolenT2022.ods T4 A13

Single neutron/proton Mechanic/Electric comparing examples show comparable results — but definitely not on the 16 Joule observed type.



SolenT2022.ods  T4  M45

   An ELECTRIC particle accelerator for a particle/atom with mass number A  >  300 — heaviest possible nucleus — is impossible: in this comparing case: a neutron bead with A = 1.18 T10 = 11.8 Giga. No way.


The cosmic radiation impact results — modern academy favoring relativity theory


The established textbooks (FÖRSTÅ RELATIVITETSTEORIN G. Lindahl, Biblioteksförklaget 1971, s22) mentions a value vR = 0.995c. with h=6 KM. With h=30 KM (FYSIK FÖR TEKNISKA FACKSKOLOR, R-Westöö, Esselte 1975, s59), and N=1000, the result gives a value of A = 31. With the Lindahl1971 lower h=6 KM, the result shows A = 498. The authors also claim these values to to be the experimentally observed.







FÖRSTÅ RELATIVITETSTEORIN En vägledning till självstudier av Göran Lindahl och Nils Norlind

Biblioteksförlaget STOCKHOLM 1971 ¦ s22-23

Understand relativity theory — a guide to self-tuitions


”Av tusen µ-mesoner på 6 km höjd borde endast en kunna observeras vid jordytan. Detta strider mot experiment som har gjorts. I själva verket når hälften (i vårt fall cirka 500) av de ursprungliga µ-mesonerna ner till jordytan.”, G. Lindahl s22”, translated:

Of thousand µ-mesons at 6 KM altitude only one ought to be observed at Earth ground. This contradicts experiments. In fact half (in our case circa 500) of the original µ-mesons reaches Earth surface.


The detailed explaining mathematic is given illustrated in MULTIPLEcPRROF.



Exact same mathematical ranks as in established textbooks (Quote). But the different inwardly contradictory explanations exclude any unitive resolution; Only one explanation can relate the other as primitive: Both cannot possibly hold.


According to established sources (ENCARTA 99, Cosmic rays, and further[‡]) one has observed extremely high energetic particles with impacting energies up to T11 GeV = 1 T20 eV =  — that is 16.02 Joule. If that energetic impact would refere a single incoming proton, its corresponding mechanic velocity would be

v = √ 2E/m0 = √ 2(T20eV · 1.602 t19 C)/(1.67332 t27 KG) = 461 568.39c, witch c = c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S.

   No here known or reported established instance knows how such high energy surges could be generated.

   Not even close to.



As already suggested in Introduction.


   Modern (1800+) prominent academic cosmological descriptions in physics and mathematics makes it practically impossible to relate naturally occuring dynamics in a fully explaining and rational, logical sense.


   As viewed from the related TNED deductions in physics and mathematics, the Planck equivalents apparently explains (Introduction) the essential details as illustrated above in MULTIPLEc[‡]. Cosmic radiation energy observations on the Planck equivalents’ explaining frame, apparently connect a more rich background and explaining base to the measured quantities. Especially the most energetically high of these observations (the 16 Joule = 1 T20 eV example): Its demanding rational answer is apparently impossible to reproduce with present (13 T12 eV) particle c-limited accelerators.

   Along with the impulse (linear momentum p=mv) providing equality on Planck equivalents (Introduction): not at all with any kind of electric instrumentation.


   As related below (Wikipedia, Observable universe) the academic attitude to a multiple c issue also seems (greatly) compromised — only bringing further disorder to a possible ACADEMIC resolution for a cosmic unitive idea of physics: consensus is still no scientific subject. But a related answer is.





Compare the modern academicaccumulated expansion

(Wikipedia article Observable universe [1Mar2012]):

Universe age: 13.7 Gy (t = 13.7 T9 · 365.25 · 86400 S = 4.3233912 T17 S) with a radial extension of 46 T9 ly (d = 46 T9 · 3 T8 M/S · 365.25 · 86400 S = 4.3549488 T26 M) giving a mean expanding velocity (v=d/t)/(c=3T8 M/S) = 3.357664234 c:

   Not even in modern quarters can a reasonable explanation be given to our cosmic situation without ideas of a multiple c.

   Compare the corresponding average vEXP from the TNED deduced K-cell expansion [***present t = 20.82 Gy on radius [K-cell Mass and Radius] r = (T2Gm2/2)1/3 with m2=4.1747 T53 KG], r=1.818 T26 M;

(v=d/t)/(c=3T8 M/S) = 0,9224150675 c.

From the first surge, the expansion velocity is humongous but short [ref.: EarthMass2021IAU.ods T3 G53].

————— ***

20.82 Gy: PROVING VERIFICATION: MoonRecession.

   Modern academy has all the data on the table: geological compositions both in Earth and Moon crust, especially the radioactive material on Moon (up to ten times higher than on Earth). It is all lying there — except this one: TIME. The modern academic 5 billion years (5 Gy ¦ 4.35) fits excellently with FIRST WATER ON EARTH SURFACE fact (The NASA Article 2005). But THAT BY ITSELF is a too short time for relating all the puzzling pieces together: not enough time. The TNED deduction makes is (gallantly — especially on the radioactive part introducing some extra controversy into modern corridors).

   Everything fits, as the glove over the hand.


   All celestial bodies — beginning from a Dmax — develop concentric atomic production (IronCore) with a last (LGD) surface neutron decay — hydrogen long before any local starlight appears — these need some start up time (»typical Windows Operating System»). Beneath is a layer of oxygen (and further layers of other elements and their mixes below [NeutronMatrices]). It is the last phase on the primary geophysical celestial body’s build up: At the celestial body’s surface is forming ICE. More or less, depending on primary body mass. ICE (BAref3, comets as ”dirty rocks of ice”), IceVERSIONgraphTHE ICE detailed.



Related physics and mathematics solutions


the rare 16 Joule = 1 T20 eV Earth atmosphere cosmic radiation energy surge observation range:



ALSO TNED — related mathematics and physics — would stand flat with no answer — IF the 16 Joule energetic cosmic particle impacting Earth’s atmosphere would — really — be a one single proton. No such TNED/related cosmic sources exist:

The necessary velocity parameter  v on the E = mv²/2 = 16J on the far (TNED) available sources needs a rough v=461500c0. Even if a such ejecta exists in a TNED deduced ideal macrocosmic c0-space,


SolenT2022.ods  T4  N64


A Dmax sphere with radius ca 9% of the distance Earth-Sun has a corresponding gravitationally energy collected surface ejection capacity of v = 461 500 c0.

   That is apparently NOT the type object [K-cell mass / 208000] we are trying to relate the 16 Joule cosmic radiation impact energy on. See vREF.


   the far out dim universe rim edges where the last (TNED deducible) divergence ignitions existed

   will set up definite conditions that exclude certain masses and exhibit others as potential candidates. And


   in any case all with considerably lower v, and with a demanded higher mass than only one neutron. See Original Debris.

The only possible remaining solution[‡1]¦[‡2] consists of a very small (picometer = t12 M) Dmax neutron bead on a considerably lower ejecta velocity (3-15c0), as suggested[‡]: exact time on perfect assembly. Mechanics. No electric.

   Because a pure kinetic explanation contradicts an already 100 year accepted relativistic sensational cosmology, no established instance will take a kinetic argument seriously — unless further proved on some explicitly (very, exceptionally — »ultra high») strong foundation.




TheTEXPLAN: MULTIPLEc ¦ Introduction


The TNED EXPLANATION — Light’s — macroscopic electric and magnetic interaction physics — Gravitational Dependency (LGD):

The continuous birth of stars and galaxies — high energy surges — as the K-cell — our universe — continues to expand: beginning from Dmax:


HOW the K-cell evolves — DebrisOrigin



Given The Seven Principles of Physics in Universe History [APARC, FUNTOP, POM, NEONS, GRIP, DEEP and PASTOM], only [P4] Newton’s Three are known in modern quarters, the rest gave itself up with not much resistance: like pouring water from one bucket to another. No big deal. However, it took its sweet time.



   The general K-cell cosmological property (General State Equation) resembles that of an organic cell (The c0-body): The Energy Law — energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted — certifies that any ultimate origin of mass — gravitation: energy — is impossible to relate: no origin: »modern academy’s favorite pet». Following the lead, the resulting mathematics and physics points out a cosmic central pulsating K-cell (half period some 336 Gy). Its explanation is all based on the central Light’s Gravitational Dependency (LGD) explaining all the mathematical details. The energy law: mass can be given no rational idea of an ultimate origin. Its energy content (E=hf=mc²) is a detailed relatable never created, impossible to destroy provision in physics science — necessary for bringing the light out.

   The surrounding c0-body[‡] in negative divergence certifies that its dormant non decaying neutrons follow the central K-cell contraction with a filling up of the vacancies from the previous corresponding neutron mass in the expanding period that was spent on mass destructions for light and heat. That certifies the energy budget and guarantees the pulsing:

   The refill exactly replaces what was spent on light and heat in mass destructions from the previous period.

   In modern corridors (1800+), one has adopted the idea that our universe (the K-cell) is the only existential, rational och logical mass holder. A limited mass it is, modern academy says. And hence a dead end — contradictory — energy explanation: »life has no meaning beyond the death, lights out, of this present universe».

   Not directly so proclaimed, but so directly interpreted. Joy everywhere in modern corridors. Very positive attitudes. MustBuyBook.

   One thing we humans KNOW for sure: Everywhere we look, there is ALWAYS more mass behind. So: from where — the idea — NOT? Please share. Apparently not from under the stars: consensus is still no scientific subject. But a related answer is: nature.


Beginning from a DENSITYmax:

AFTER »THE BIG BANG» — universe begins to expand (again) — the Dmax neutron masses follow a history of DIVERGENCE IGNITION: a c-traveling WAVE FRONT — light propagation-divergence governed by gravitation (LGD) — follows the expanding K-cell mass bodies as they divide into smaller. At its rim the J-bodies enter a positive divergence: the neutron masses begin to decay.



When they do, related physics identifies these as The GRB-objects at the present rim of our visual universe:

   The (very) high energy surges release (enormous) amounts of energy when the neutron decay takes over. Formation of the local bodies’ material elements begin building heavier elements from lighter by the Dmax spontaneously tight occurring fusion reactions (FusionRings).

   However the TNED calculation have no chance in explaining a single neutron or proton up to the mentioned high linear momentum levels (the 16 Joule example), as observed and reported in the Earth’s atmosphere (the counting of my-mesons). But a neutron bead can. And then again: completely outside electric particle accelerator provisions.



The SUMMINGreference (Introduction) and MULTIPLEc illustration give the general TNED explaining details with links.



With further tests on the experimentally known results — all of them, all branches as known here — The Planck Equivalents show a consistent resulting picture — no deviations: explaining the overall reported instrumental observations — or not at all.





TheSolarEclipses:  Proving the light deflection from the eclipses ¦ MULTIPLEc ¦ ExperimentalConfirmations






MODERN ACADEMY (1800+) does not reason so.

   But it uses the same end mathematics:


e = rc²/2Gm2



light has no connection to kinetics — a light path does not exhibit centrifugal — no mass — force properties — no way:

   So the simple mathematical deduction is to remove the centrifugal aspect factor from the general celestial — kinetic — normals.

   Same end mathematics — simple Classics — as is claimed from established corridors — claiming »relativistic explanations».





POTENTIAL BARRIER — apparently unknown in modern quarters ¦ LGD — apparently unknown Concept in modern quarters ¦ TwoArguments



Dodge that one, if you can, Modern Academy (normally so full of denial and utter contempt to any aspect questioning its already established authority):

   Light develops not centrifugation (The Kepler-Newton Kinetic Trajectory).



   KNOWING that Light propagation has no kinetic properties — no centrifugation — the easiest way to deduce (LIGHTPATHS IN GRAVITATIONFIELDS) the trajectory math for a light path associated with a central mass is to double the gravitating factor. That is because (Application 1 — KEPLER MOMENTUM BASICS) kinetics associated with central action physics is based on a balance between centrifugal- and centripetal tug (Application 2 — The Gravitation Law).

   That leads us to the final end mathematics as deduced. See further from e = rc²/2Gm2.

   See also Max Planck on the PHOTON concept.


Modern academy rejected Planck’s suggestion that the photo electric effect reflected properties of the atom, not of light. So, instead: modern academy adopted the Einstein idea of perfectly massless inductive quanta [COEI in related physics: E=UQ-basics] as a moving particle: excellent for mathematical treatises [You know .. 1  2  3 ..]. But completely worthless — and hefty misleading — in explaining the deep of physics ¦ Planck’s idea was — apparently — on the verge of discovering a way to deduce the atomic nucleus, as it seems. But that type of line-thinking was not approved at the time — and still isn’t in modern corridors — and never will be: modern academic suicide if so.


   It is perfectly valid to state that the deflection of light near Sun follows the (first 1900s relativistic proposed) expression aRADIANS = 4Gm2/rc² and NOT the Newton physics 2Gm2/rc². Yes.

   But it is also a perfectly valid claim to state that Newton physics — kinetics — does not connect to the phenomena. Not at all. Newton had no idea of LIGHT’S GRAVITATIONAL DEPENDENCY. No way. And present modern academic aces seem even less acquainted:

   Light physics develops no centrifugation — resembles no moving mass particles.

  And it is therefore incorrect, and only stupid, to introduce Newton physics in a comparing battle between classic and relativistic physics: they have nothing in common.

   Modern academy aces seem to have grasped that too — but definitely not its content.

   We study the details of that in the following.


SolenT2022.ods  T1 A51


Electric Constantenhancing the IAU-test precision on G and mS — see also TheRESULT on the Perihelion Precessions ¦ TheGtest and TheElectricConstant on G and mS


The comparing CalCard cell blocks show slight (measurably insignificant) values, all inside the already claimed general accepted 1.75’’ result. It should be noted, though as already established, that the measuring technique is quite far from any direct precision in significands. The end value precision highly depends on the measured (or estimated) light beam radial distance from the ideal gravitational center. The only reasonable instrumentation to make such measuring accurate is from high altitude satellites where Earth atmospheric distorting phenomena is minimal. The last remarkable argument: Solar eclipses of the 1919+ kind expeditions happen only with intervals of thousands of years.

— The B(Einstein) values have used the present established standard (Wikipedia) values for G = 6.6743 t11 JM/[KG]² and mS = 1.98847 T30 KG.

— The B(LGD) values have used results on G and mS from the present (Nov-Dec2022) IAU-test charts: G = 6.6701000093 t11 JM/[KG]² and mS = 1.98963199773 T30 KG. These values also certify the results on the perihelion precession calculations and their comparing measures, as well as the planet’s anomalistic periods. See TheRESULT.



In a below real scale comparison between TNED (LGD) and MAC (Schwarzchild) the difference disappears towards zero as distance from a central mass approaches infinity. Exemplifying the established Solar radius (6.957 T8 M), the c-relation in TNED/MAC is the practically insignificant figure 1.000002123 with a c-difference (r=6.657 T8 M) of cTNED — cSCH = 636.356 965 839 900 M/S. With the observed light deflection near Sun (The Eddington expedition 1919+) this difference is, what we know, apparently totally insignificant.




Large central mass distances r makes the difference between the two c-results disappear. Schwarzchild w² = GmS/r. GmS=1.

For light’s deflection near the Sun, the present instrumental resolution is, what we know, not sufficient if the examination is

to determine who is which in what.



And, as seen by the comparing end values (the established claimed deflection 1.75’’), they are also practically the same as seen by the limited resolution of the measuring instrumentation.


So: We should not wonder on the amaze the Solar Eclipse expedition awoke around year 1920 when it was clear — on stated assumptions — that it was the

4Gm2/rc² (1.75’’) and NOT the Newton physics 2Gm2/rc² (0.87’’)

that won the match.

— Intelligence in Modern Academy is apparently on the Up (global Joy1).

The Related/Schwarzchild differences:

   There is what we know, no reasonable way to settle the question on the narrow c-margins.

   Only with a (macroscopic) high value central mass the differences become measurably significant;

   Light deflection near Sun is apparently not the object for settling the c-differences as such.

   The Solar Eclipse expedition (1919+) and its result on the Schwarzchild c-formula expression, is said to have been the turning point when Einstein’s theory of relativity won a world wide fame.


   Because it was held, and still is in modern corridors, that the result launched ”a new theory of gravitation”. That was some deeply sensational News. Not »a new discovery in physics» named Light’s Gravitational Dependency: light connects NOT to kinetics. No sir. No way. That is how DRIFT works. Say.


— Natural Insight in Humanity is apparently on the Up (global Joy2).


Proving the nature of light

— by comparing established ideas of its nature on already well known observations:

— All celestial — mechanical: kinetic — orbits have these gravitational properties:


   They develop centrifugation (Coriolis Effect — Coriolis’ first theorem 1882)

on changes in linear motion (rotation).

   Light propagation has no known quality of gravitation — no centrifugation

   LIGHT (GripDeep)

— divergence, electricity and magnetism — is

   different for all matter, can be shielded from: time dependent

  GRAVITATION — convergence — is

   equal for all matter, can NOT be shielded from: time independent;

   They (Gpotential) are deduced (The CEPH Equation) from Kepler Momentum Mathematics.


Light paths should hence neither have any centrifugation property in any exposed (orbital) path. Such as for example the one (Solar eclipses 1919+) close to a (high) gravitating mass (as our Sun: the measuring expeditions 1919+). That is also the mathematical explanation, as exposed in this article.



TheSolarEclipses Light physics does not connect kinetics



The only reasonable here known voice of its time was Max Planck (ref. Gamow, Thirty Years That Shook Physics, 1966, Swedish version p33). He concluded that the Photoelectric Effect reflected properties of the atoms. Not properties of light. Related physics: light is massless, propagates massless (and so proven in explicit by the Eclipse experiments 1919+). But has electromagnetic quanta (photons: COEI in related physics: conservation of energy by induction) capable of exchanging their energy with matter (The Compton effect) ¦ PotentialBarrier ¦ ComptonEffectIllustrated.

— BUT: »Modern Academy constantly fucks with nature» (TheLIST ¦ persistently 1800+ insisting on introducing academic consensus — agreed inventions, not deductions: INVENTING (InertialSystem) still new ideas (”dark energy”) of interpretations — based on already established more basic inventions SAFELY SECURING THEIR FUTURE SURVIVAL TOO. Perhaps the most prominent of these highly beloved academic pets is the illustrated v+ic-error below. The short version: PRESERVATION OF an already increasingly apparent surface minded idea of cosmic existential purposefulness) — because having invented the above hinted menu of Blocking Ideas. And so an Academic Consensus formed a specific such future (please do disclaim) by consequences: DRIFT. Not plan.


ThePlanckWay: The Solar Eclipses



The right way

Planck equivalents:


The System’s mass and energy are preserved constant — Planck Equivalents:

m0c2 = mccu = constant = E: no mass is created, no mass is destroyed. u = electrically accelerated charge speed:

Q = √ (m/R)(A/dT) follows Planck Equivalents: m and R varies exact in proportion as certified by a constant charge Q

Q is electrically — light — accelerated by U to a velocity u — never even touching c, no matter the energy input.

TheEinsteinError: ThePlanckWay The v+ic-error:

Light physics does not connect kinetics

The wrong way:

The v+ic error

ADOPTING [1905] »The c Cocoon Association»: ”nothing is faster than c”— by DRIFT. Not plan:

»NOTHING CAN TRAVEL FASTER THAN c»: the v+ic error in Einstein’s Special Relativity Equations:



There are no known physical laws in our universe proving that light connects to kinetics.

No way ¦ ProvingTheEclipses: Light develops not centrifugation: no Kepler-Newton classic celestial orbits.


— By erroneously featuring an idea that light propagation c and kinetic velocity v ARE additive — compromising v on credit of c — we EASILY derive the Einstein’s special relativity basic equations as above. See the math details part in the original Swedish edition of the The v+ic error, unless already familiar. Planck equivalents[‡] it is. Electric and Mechanic does not match. No way.


While the Einstein solution introduces ELECTRIC features as a The Universe Authority [PlanckRelatedEquivalents] and the following 1900s scientific development apparently became very much characterized by That Electric part [6Aug1945+: Hiroshima, Nagasaki] — the Mechanics part [Days of Thunder, Tom Cruise 1990 — car industry in general] went in a state of permanent oblivion as even a possible SUCH candidate.




— No such observable, provable or relatable physics exist. PROOF on already well known historical experimentation:



PROVING the light path trajectory from THE Solar ECLIPSES 1919+


Deflection of light by the Sun —— The Eddington experiment and expedition [1919+]




light has no connection to kinetics — a light path does not exhibit centrifugal — mass — force properties



Gpotential: Proving


— minus the centrifugation aspect : no mass property: same observed light path, same math, same value:


   As deduced from the Kepler Area Momentum CENTRAL ACTION mathematical physics: kinetics




Deducing the elementary velocity expressions [CephEquationDeduced] beginning from the normal distance d=r on x;y=0;0 for the different types of orbits gives

vn2= (1+e)Gm2/r where v[n] is the normal velocity at start, e is the characteristic eccentricity, and m2 is the central mass on distance r=d from the orbiting object and G the universal gravitation constant.

With e=—1: a free fall ¦ v[n] ² =0; e=0: the circle ¦ v[n] ² =Gm2/r; e=1: the parabola ¦ v[n] ² =2Gm2/r; and e>1: the hyperbola ¦ v[n] ² = [1+e]Gm2/r. THE EQUILIBRIUM between g-force and centrifugal force for an orbital mass m at distance r=r from a central mass m2 is defined within Mechanics through the gravitation potential w²=Gm2/r from F = ma = Gm2m/r², Fr = mar = Gm2m/r, Fr/m = ar = Gm2/r = [M/S²]M = [M/S]² = w². It hence works independent of the orbiting body’s mass quantity — centrifugation by mass.



WHEREAS the g-force F is directly proportional to the central mass m2, which for all massive bodies corresponds to an exact balancing centrifugal force[‡A1], defining the actual path of the orbit at any moment in time, weather it is in a state of increase or decrease,

   our closest nearest way for eliminating the centrifugal aspect would be the simple test of doubling the centripetal (gravitating) g-force. Analogously: doubling the central mass.


On the kinetic-mechanic gravitation-centrifugation balancing credit in concern of a hyperbolic orbit path



   the result is — apparently — forced to accept a net zero removed not acting at all centrifugal influence

— our related light physics liberty from kinetics: light does not connect kinetics See more related from LightPathsInGfields.


v[n] ² = [1+e]2Gm2/r, = c² for a light path close to the visual rim of our Sun [Solar eclipses from 1919]:


   The Mechanical — kinetic, v — motional aspect of the moving object ceases. And is replaced by a massless gravitationally controlled CONDITION OF PROPAGATION on the speed of light — ideally as in empty space vacuum.


The eccentric number then yields

   e = (rc²/2Gm2) — 1.


TNED related values — see extended electric constant IAU-test


m2        = 1.98963199771721 T30 KG, our Sun mass from 

rG         = 6.96575835977117 T8 M. the electro-gravital Solar Rim Radius

G          = 6.67010000933003 t11 JM/[KG]², gravitation constant

c           = c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S, top speed light propagation in vacuum

rS         = 6.957 T8 M established Solar radius [Wikipedia, Solar radius]

The deflection depends [on precise measures] on the radial distance from Sun’s center:

Not specified in available sources — »visible rim» [rS] appears implied.


Here e (236 431) becomes much larger than 1, giving a hyperbola just slightly different from a straight line. Apart form the minus 1 the simplification gives us


e = rc²/2Gm2  .........   Proving the light path trajectory


Further familiar with the CEPH-geometry [here in PREFIXxSIN] our hyperbolic e is equal to 1/cosH, H equal to the hyperbolic asymptotic angle. The total deviating hyperbolic light path then with e=1/cosH, cosH=1/e, becomes


a           = 2cosH = 2/rc²/2Gm2 = 4Gm2/rc² ..... the light deviation around the central mass



(we use the local real c instead of the general c0):


Gm2/rc² = 1 — 2/(1 + 1/√1 — 4Gm2/rc0²) ;



c                        = c0(1/2)(1 + √ 1 — 4Gm2/rc0²)          ; Deduction

                          = c0(1/2)(1 + √ 1 — 4[P])                     ;

                      = c0²(1/4)(1 + √ 1 — 4[P]                  ;

                          = c0²/[(4) / (1 + √1 — 4[P]] 

                          = c0²[P]/[(4[P]) / (1 + √1 — 4[P]] 

                          = c0²[P]/[(1 — R²) / (1 + R] 

                          = c0²[P]/[(1 — R)(1 + R) / (1 + R] 

                          = c0²[P]/[(1 — R) / (1 + R)] 

                          = c0²[P]/[(1 — √1 — 4[P]) / (1 + √1 — 4[P])] 

                          = c0²[P]/[(1 + √1 — 4[P]) — (2√1 — 4[P]) / (1 + √1 — 4[P])] 

                          = c0²[P]/[1 — 2√1 — 4[P] / (1 + √1 — 4[P])] 

                          = c0²[P]/[1 — 2/(1 + 1/√1 — 4[P])] 

                          = c0²(Gm2/rc0²)/[1 — 2/(1 + 1/√1 — 4Gm2/rc0²)] 

                          = Gm2/r[1 — 2/(1 + 1/√1 — 4Gm2/rc0²)] 

Gm2/rc²            = 1 — 2/(1 + 1/√1 — 4Gm2/rc0²)           ;



The same result is claimed from established centers — based on mathematics from Albert Einsteins general theory of relativity: Same end expression. No sign of Einstein. No way.


Small H-values directly corresponds to a radian angle (in PREFIXxSIN: cos1° = 0.0174524 = 0.0174532RAD). The a-value here gives (LGD) with the above specified Gm2 rG c0 values


a           = 8.479207885 t6. With a in degrees (a° = 180a/π, or direct from arccos a) hence

         = 4.858228254 t4      = 1.7489621716 ’’ — rounded

             = 1.75 ’’ ..................     =1.75 arc seconds:


Calculated values [B(Einstein), Schwarzchild] with standard constants (general Source: Wikipedia) using the c-expression from Schwarzchild’s solution (LGD ¦ Tables) give so small comparing differences between TNED and MAC that these, what we know, are completely irrelevant to the resolution of the measuring instrumentation.



SolenT2022.ods T1  A51

  Sammanfattningsvis kan vi säga att en ljusstråle som passerar nära en tung partikel kommer att böjas i första hand beroende på den icke-euklidiska karaktären av kombinationen av tid och rum. Denna krökning motsvarar den som beror på den Newtonska gravitationen och kan beräknas på det vanliga sättet under antagande att ljus har tyngd liksom en materiell kropp. I andra hand kommer den att krökas beroende på den icke-euklidiska karaktären av rummet ensamt, en böjning som ej förutsägs av Newtons lag. Om vi kan observera krökningen av en ljusstråle kan vi utföra ett prov som avgör huruvida Einsteins eller Newtons teori gäller .. 1,75’’ (Einsteins teori .. 0,87’’ (Newtons teori) ..”., Arthur Eddington from Newman 1959 The World of Mathematics 1956 Band2 Chapter 21, Sw., En matematikens kulturhistoria. Here freely [back] translated:

   SUMMING UP we can say that a ray of light passing near a heavy particle will bend on a first hand depending on the non-euclidean character of the combination time and space. This bending corresponds to the one depending on the Newtonian gravitation and can be calculated  the usual way under the assumption that light has weight as a material body. On a second hand it will bend depending on the non-euclidean character of space alone, a bending that is not predictable by Newton's law. If we can observe the bending we can perform a test which determines weather Einstein's or Newton's theory holds .. 1.75'' (Einstein's theory) .. 0.87'' (Newton's theory) ..


(Excuse me: we have read a lot of eminent descriptions in the known history of science. But this part from Eddington seems to take a price of its own).



The value 1.75’’ is the standard astronomically specified reported from the 1919+ Solar eclipse observations:

   The light path follows a curvature free from centrifugation properties.

— The Eddington assumption as quoted apparently has no physical solidity.

— If it HAD centrifugation properties, mass, it WOULD apply to a regular Kepler-Newton kinetic trajectory: it didn’t.

  Which, apparently, is the exact mathematical classical Kepler-Galilei-Newton physical explanation:

   LIGHT DOES NOT CONNECT KINETICS: e = rc²/2Gm2 it is. See also TwoArguments.


   There is no relativity theory applications in the real world physics. No way.

(»Mathematics conquered modern academy, and led it on a path it did not know». Drift. Not plan).


The result — apparently — advocated the birth of a new branch in physics (LGD) that modern academy never got to.

Some quotes:


ResearchGate — PDF [26Dec2022]


Domingos Soares ¦ Federal University of Minas Gerais - Brazil


  Modern science is both authority-driven and — a novelty — money-driving.

The prototype of the authority-driven type is the 1919 astronomical missions

to observe a solar eclipse and designed to “prove” that General Relativity

Theory (GRT) was right in a particular prediction, namely, the amount of

light deflection by a massive body.”,


  It is worthwhile mentioning at this point that none of later solar eclipse missions in 1922, 1929, 1936, 1947 and 1952 yielded conclusive results about the amount of light deflection (Newtonian or Einsteinian, cf. [10, p. 68]). The GRT result has been indeed confirmed later by observations in the radio wavelength range.


Only recently, from observations of the total solar eclipse on August 21st, 2017, it was claimed that the 1.75 arc second bending was observed in visible light, with an accuracy of 3% (cf. [11]).


It is an instructive exercise to compare the extreme rigor, the modern techniques and instrumentations used in ref. [11] with the rough experiment undertaken in the Dyson-Eddington missions. The impossibility of a conclusive result therein will clearly emerge.


Nobody really knew, then, the specifics of the data reduction process realized

by Dyson in conjunction with Eddington. Marmet and Couture, Appendix C [9]

describes the praise of authority in a section of the Royal Astronomical Society:


The results from the 1919 expedition were quickly accepted by the scientific community. When preliminary results were announced, Joseph Thomson (from the Chair) said:


“It is difficult for the audience to weigh fully the meaning of the figures that have been put before us, but the Astronomer Royal [Dyson] and Prof. Eddington have studied the material carefully, and they regard the evidence as decisively in favor of the larger value for the displacement.”


ResearchGate — PDF [26Dec2022]


Domingos Soares ¦ Federal University of Minas Gerais - Brazil



e = rc²/2Gm2 it is. See also TwoArguments.


Conclusion: AS SO ALREADY Stated:


See also Two Arguments.




Suns4: LightAndGravitation: — LGDThe Einstein Error ¦ ThePerihelionPrecessions




Related physics description


Of the Sun’s 4 TNED Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law connected and deduced heat degrees

T  Tg  Tw  Tponly the Planck heat degree Tp is known in modern academy

three have a direct cr connectivity to the corresponding cr factors in the perihelion precession complex. The three-row table, left below, shows the associated constants. But only one of them — if at all — can have a fully rational and relatable, quantitative, provable connection. The resolution of that exciting task is given further below in CaseClosed and (fully mathematically) in TheExperiment.





The mathematics of the planetary perihelion precessons according to classic mechanics RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS — relativity theory ideas expires.

EXACT MATHcr perihelion precession background:

The Sun’s 4 heat degrees all emanate and are deduced in related physics and mathematics from Stefan-Boltzmann’s radiation law

——————————————— ¦

SOLENS VÄRMEGRADER ¦ Solens 4 Värmegrader — Kalkyl ¦

Used constants:

Illustration’s designations (original Jan2008)related physics and mathematics — we leave no one behind:


m2         actual at present star mass ¦ see Sun mass analysis : 1.989661830 T30 KG ¦ further in ElectricConstant

mA        atomic Hydrogen weight: U = 1.0078252: actual mass: mA = Uu  u atomic mass unit ¦  HOPtable

r0          Proton radius: 1.37 t15 M — based on pioneer scattering experiments: 1.37 Fermi. See further tests in the NeutronSquare.

u           atomic mass unit, Carbon12/12, = 1.66033 t27 KG

G          gravitation constant — see TheG-test ¦ old school [1966-2000] nominal value [HOP] 6.67 t11 JM/[KG]²

R           Star Anvil Radius: SunR = 4012 M [ from DayOne ..]

r            distance from R — BasicEPSmath has adopted/compromised R as »distance from Sun» [ r, elliptic orbit’s half minor axis]

a           absorption coefficient, nominal 2/3 for all first class hydrogen normal stars

kP          2k/c0 : 3.781904041 t16 NM–2°K–4

ke          electric vacuum constant: 1/ 4πε0 : 8.98744 T9 VM/C

e            elementary charge-quantum — electron charge : 1.602 t19 C

ρC          rho: maximum Coulomb density on given star atom base mA — primary Hydrogen:

             8.13444 T16 KG/M³ = mA / [ 2r0 ]³ = 1.0078252u/[2·1.37 t15M]³

b           Boltzmann constant: 1.380550287753 t23 J/°K

k           2π · b4π4/(15h3c02) Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, as deduced , =  5.6699807232 t8 WM–2°K–4

h           Planck constant: 6.62559 t34 JS                    

kW        2.89794 t3 M°K Wien law constant

c0          light’s linear free space divergence velocity: 2.99792458 T8 M/S

Z           atomic number — primary stars = 1, Hydrogen base

ρ           rho: actual  shell/spherical density: 3m2/(4πr3) — also accounted for over any distance [r] from Sun ; D=m/Vsphere

γP          gamma: γP = p – pe = g-pressureCONTRACTIVE  minus  e-pressureEXPANSIVE¦Coulomb pressureRepulsion

pe          Coulomb pressure : ke(Zer0r)2 

p           gravitational contractive pressure :  G(m2/r)2/4πr2, = G(m2)2/4πr4 = 4πG(ρr/r)2 = ρ4/3(4π)1/3G(m2)2/3 

             γP = G(m2)2/4πr4ke(Zer0)2/r2 ; only AS pe becomes negligible outside StartSurface, GAMMAp varies as

                    γP := G(m2)2/4πr4 discernible Coulomb pressure outside star surface  

Results: LightAandGravitation


Sun’s Four Temperature Degrees, as deduced:


Concordant with comparing quantities on magnetism, sun spots, sun period, corona physics,

and all other foremost studied details of our Sun — especially the Photometric Effect: The IAU Test (Oct2018):

— The general UniverseHistory cosmological test (»love me or leave me»): a direct hit.


In modern academy only the Planck temperature TP is known:

— Why? No atomic nucleus deduction. Not even a hint. Not a sound. Not a spell. Not one word: No Dmax Begin: no StarANVIL. No Nothing. Why? Ask them. Say again.

   Look up any available source in any available instance: there are no other references to the results here other than the results hereunless deduced likewise. Say.



As deduced from the above parameters in UniverseHistory [2008+]: In modern academy only the Plack temperature TP  is known:


T           = (4πG/akP)1/4r–3/2CR4/3)1/2 °K heat degree radial variation, Sun’s first equation — ceases at Sun’s g-surface

TP         = (P3.84 T26/a[r2]k5,7 t8)1/4 °K Planck radiation — not represented inside Sun’s g-surface ¦ [ 3.84  first approximation ]:

             = (√1/r)(P3.84 T26/a[]k5,7 t8)1/4 = (√1/rconstant      ;

r            = (constant/TP)2                                                              ; checked TP

         = P/akP)1/4 °K temperature equivalent thermo nuclear radiation pressure — extends limitless from R

             := ([G(m2)2/4πr4]/akP)1/4 = r–1([G(m2)2/4π]/akP)1/4      ; Sun’s coronal radiation physics, as deduced

r            = (Tγ)–1([G(m2)2/4π]/akP)1/4                                         ; direct proportionality to Star distance — over shorter time periods:

r            = (Tγ)–1([G(m2)2/4π]/a[2k/c0])1/4                                  ;

r            = (Tγ)–1([c0G(m2)2/2ak4π])1/4                                       ;

r            = (Tγ)–1c01/4([G(m2)2/2ak4π])1/4                                    ;

rc0         = (Tγ)–1c05/4([G(m2)2/2ak4π])1/4                                    ; the perihelion precession cr parameters: °K.-equivalents: heat

             = (Tγ)–1 · constant                                                           ; checked

Star mass decreases as light and heat emits from E=mc² mass destruction

AminorTermConflict: LAG




The BasicEPSmath’s Rr mean distance from Sun, half minor ellipsis axis and the Suns4 Rr AnvilRadius, distance from SunCenter should be explained/clarified/elucidated in the running text (The AnvilR is explicitly not used in the following).

   The reader should know that in general, what we know here, none of these following Suns4 parts have any whatsoever corresponding familiarity in present academic corridors. So, it is imperative to give exact mathematical referrences here. The reader should also know that there is an interesting — ButLOOK — resolution in this apparently present academic nature oblivion (as earlier hinted at [‡]).


TW        = r–1(mAGm2[kWIEN=2.89794 t3 M°K]/hc0)                ; G-energy WienTemperature equivalent

TW        = (rc0)–1  (mAGm2k/h) = (rc0)–1(9.7129143335161 T23 °K·M2/S = H)

             = H/rc0                                                                             ; checked TW

Elliptic Designations uses R for Sun distance (r above) = ellipse’s half major axis, with r/R = E = √ 1–e2 ;

r=RE ; in a corresponding rc match:

TW        = H/Rc0 = H/(r/E)c0

             = HE/rc0                                                                          ;

rc0         = HE/TW                                                                         ;

The modern academic missing part: explaining apparently the perihelion precession physics — by mathematical/observational detail

R           = (TP/constant)2 = r/E                                                     ;

r            = E(TP/constant)2                                                            ; part in denominator’s k-factor also includes c0; 2π· b4π4/(15h3c02):

TP         = (P3.8275 T26/a[r2]k5.7 t8)1/4                                                   ;

TP         = ([(15h3c02)/(2π· b4π4)]P3.8275 T26/a[r2])1/4                          ;

             = ([(15h3c02)]P3.8275 T26/2π·b4π4a[r2])1/4

             = ([(15h3c02)]P3.8275 T26/b4π6a[r2])1/4

             = ([1/r]2[(15h3c02)]P3.8275 T26/b4π6a)1/4

             = ([1/rc0]2[(15h3c04)]P3.8275 T26/b4π6a)1/4                  ;

TP4       = [1/rc0]2[(15h3c04)]P3.8275 T26/b4π6a                                     ;

TP4[rc0]2           = [(15h3c04)]P3.8275 T26/b4π6a                                    ;

TP2[rc0]             = ([(15h3c04)]P3.8275 T26/b4π6a)                                      ;

             = constantTP                                                                   ; checked TP precisely

rc0         = (constantTP)/TP2                                                          ; constantTP = TP2rc0

r=RE ; in a corresponding rc match:

Rc0        = (constantTP)/TP2                                                          ;

rc0         = E(constantTP)/TP2                                                       ; the elliptic orbit spouse



WE FOLLOW THIS — Details in :

FormallyKeplerMath ¦ ThePerihelionPrecessions ¦ CoriolisResolution ¦ PerihelionPrecessionRotationalCenter ¦ AllKeplerMath ¦ KeplerMomentumBasics

ConcludingAllKeplerMath ¦ KeplerMomentumBasics ¦


If the reader — at this stage — can follow the following short presentation: be my guest,

A normally equipped person though, should need a few first enlightening hints to what the following is all about:

— So: If the following should fail on the reader, try the more in detail explaining elementary ThePerihelionPrecessions.

In there are connections. Should be no problem. It is all elementary AllKeplerMath.



CENTRIFUGATION v²/r and KEPLER Area Momentum vr

The » Kepler-Planck connection » — not mentioned in modern quarters, what we know:

åK = (v2/r)(vr) = v3 ; (= →) uc2  : formally : v3 = v1v2v3 ; v1 = u ;  v2 = v2 = c ;  v3uc2 ;

Dn v3 = (v3)’ = 3v2 ,= CONSTANT = uc2/v0     ; THIS makes absolutely no normal sense — on present known basis.

3v2/c2 = u/v0                                                         ; But WAIT until The EndStationResult: PerfectAssembly.


The integral connects to the elementary centrifugal-Kepler/Planck area momentum complex:








CENTRIFUGAL(å=v²/r)KeplerAreaMomentum(K=vr) »consolidates» a v³ function — framing an extra rotation u — on c:

åK = (v2/r)(vr) = v3 ; (= →) uc2  : formally : v3 = v1v2v3 ; v1 = u ;  v2 = v2 = c            ;  v3uc2 ;

u/v0 =  3(v/c)2= 3(TanA°)2 ¦ v0 = 1/M defines unity between the two rank parts


Dn (v3) = (v3)’ = 3v2 = d(uc2)/dv0 = uc2d(1)/dv0  = uc2/v0                                    ; the derivative/variant defines the function


3v2/c2 = u/v0The Eddington form, as quoted


du/dv = 3(v2/c2) ;  du = 3(v2/c2) dv ; the formal integral: [see details in FORMLAWS unless already familiar]

 3(v2/c2) dv = (3/c2) v2 dv = (3/c2)v3/3 = v3/c2 ; = → uc2/c2 = u  the precession     ;  v3uc2 ;

åK = (v2/r)(vr) = v3 ; (= →) uc2  : formally : v3 = v1v2v3 ; v1 = u ;  v2 = v2 = c    ;  v3uc2 ;

LEAD: because there are TWO different detailed physical provable domains responsible for the phenomena — gravitation and light-temperature physics — and because light has no kinetical connection (SolarEclipses: light paths develop no centrifugal force ¦ TwoArguments), we will see a phenomenal explanation to the celestial perihelion precession complex on related details that modern academy most definitely cannot handle — on both a gravitational and a light-physics based foundation — that once and for all explains and exposes relativity theory for what it is, down to its last atom.




WHAT EXPLAINS THE PHENOMENA? We have a ”v/c” and a ”cr”. But what do they mean and tell?


ONLY FROM THE DEDUCTION OF THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS: Planck constant: The Neutron — never known in modern academic teaching system. Not one word.

The perihelion precession rotations — first observed with planet Mercury: natural physics apparently entails phenomena readily mathematically expressible — with an apparently provable 1800+ modern academic real crappy idea of the nature behind:





Copied significands from  SolenT2022.ods T1 ¦ 27Nov2022 —— as deduced in Suns4


rc0                     = E·Cg (TG)–1               ; Cg = 5.09345773954984 T24 °K·M2/S ¦ °K TGamma

rc0                     = E·Cw (TW)–1              ; Cw = 0.97129143335161 T24 °K·M2/S ¦ °K TWien

rc0                     = E·Cp(TP)–2                ; Cp =  8.50996997680304 T24 °K·M2/S ¦ °K TPlanck


EXCEPT FOR THE here termed PLANCK TEMPERATURE DEGREE Tp [ direrctly from Stefan-Boltzmann’s radiation law ]

— these parts are not present, not known, not understood, not even imagined IN MODERN ACADEMY.

   Why is that?

— Apparently not because of any lack of intelligence. Absolutely not. But APPARENTLY rather because [‡] of a

   1800+ deep and strange nature opposition of using its — intelligence’s, you know the Nature Brain Construct Part,

   no 1800+ or other medical Juice:  left, right .. 1 .. 2 .. — innate content:

   more interested in INVENTING [ The Einstein Error ] than DEDUCING.


ACTUALLY the Tp-form relates directly to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law

(P = aAkT4). However. As the entire light (c) radiation mathematics relies on The Planck radiation law


— deduced here in related physics from Planck’s Entropy Connection S = b · lnW, not Boltzmann’s

[ we use the more rich Powers n^n instead of the more narrow academic permutations n! — meaning:

the concept of STATISTICS disappears — completely: the deduction points at an exact solution ]

[ basically Ludwig Boltzmann’s concepts: b = Boltzmann’s constant ]


also its accompanying the Wien displacement law is given by deriving Planck radiation law with respect to all wavelengths. Then, all electric (light) radiative phenomena relies on the Planck radiation (law, mathematics) concept (somehow with Stefan-Boltzmann’s radiation law implied). It was (hence) convenient in Universe History to associate the Sun’s most elementary heat degree Tp on a general Planck terminology convention (Planck energy E=hf=mcr·1/t=mc²): The Sun’s Planck heat degree, Tp = (P/aAk)1/4.


rc0 = E · constantTγ · (Tγ)–1       M²/S      constantTγ        = c05/4([G(m2)2/2ak4π])1/4 .............................          °K · M²/S

rc0 = E · constantTw · (Tw)–1    M²/S      constantTw       = (mHYDROGENGm2kWIEN/h) ............................           °K · M²/S

rc0 = E · constantTp · (Tp)–2      M²/S      constantTp        = ([(15h3c04)]P3.8275 T26/b4π6a)0.5 ..          °K² · M²/S


Increasing the number of — precision — constants




— the planetary perihelion precessions

experimental mechanical principle


Deducing the planetary perihelion precession phenomena from Kepler’s Third (also a basic centrifugation Kepler momentum math: v²/r · vr = v³) needs a completing pair of components: the cr pair (AllKeplerMath). But in celestial mechanics light does not connect kinetics the ”c” is compromising. It apparently suggests that the precession phenomena has electric-magnetic features — a stand with no, zero, known attesting observed physics: more parameters are needed for that. In relativity theory — where it is held that gravitation propagates with velocity c in a mathematically complex of ”space curvature” — the cr factors »were introduced naturally». And so a relativistic mathematical formula was synthesized, precisely matching the observed Mercury precession — and later others too. On that credit, the general relativity theory gained a solid established trust. Here, in related physics, the cr-factors have a classical physics explanation — based on (partly, mostly..) unknown (read: never related) phenomena in modern corridors (which was to be expected .. [‡]):

Sun’s 4 heat degrees. Only one of them is known in MAC: the Planck temperature. But all four are derived from Stefan-Boltzmann’s radiation law — on credit of the related physics deduction of the atomic nucleus: also unknown in modern quarters: thermo nuclear radiation pressure (best attested by Corona physics phenomena and quantities ..).




on a nuclear physical basis and scale that never were discovered in modern academy — apparently and provably down to last atomic nucleus. Why? Apparently Because nobody in modern quarters never cared do deduce the atomic nucleus. As related: Planck constant h=mcr, The Neutron with the following exposed Neutron Square — the atomic masses, practically identical with the ones already measured. Familiar as a spouse to the mass Kepler area momentum K= mvr: T¦GammaWienPlanck — all from star thermonuclear reactions in ways modern academy apparently never cared to investigate: unrepresented;


Extraction from the more exhaustive AllKeplerMath:


6πRGm2            = 24π3R4/T2                  ; R4/(Tcr)2 = R2/(Tc)2/(1–e2) ;  (R/r)2 = 1/(1–e2)

6πRGm2/(cr)2    = 24π3R4/(Tcr)2            ; what we know: substituting cr/cr=1 does not introduce relativistic arguments.

                          = 24π3R2/(Tc)2/(1–e2)   ; also The Wikipedia/Einstein RADIAN expression ¦  1–e2 = E2 = (r/R)2

                          = 6π(v/c)2                      ; THE RADIAN EXPRESSION


rc0 ..................  = CE(TW)–1                  ; E large eccentricity coefficient r/R, H °K·M²/S constant, TW °K G-energy Wien-temperature equivalent;

r(TW) ............   = CE/c0                         ; constant for a given elliptic orbit — elementary Deduced Related Star Physics




The cr phenomena apparently has nothing at all to do with relativity ideas: no math, no physics. No way. Just simple elementary Kepler and Planck math — complemented over elementary mathematical substitution: 1 = (A/A)^n. No relativity ideas what so ever. So:

   APPARENTLY based on physics completely unknown in modern corridors.

— Why? How? Test most (historically) popular answer [‡]: »so many cannot be wrong» — the book of wisdom by the many:

— »We already know everything»:


   Once the herd of the crowds have started to move in their daily circle — merits, education, job — no single individual claim will make them stop and turn.

   No way.

   If we suckers are going to stop and turn, it can only happen by our own will.



EDUCATIONAL BASICS — morality, code of ethics, and social intercourse

How humanity handles The environment reflects the level of cultural scientifically educated population intelligence. Say. We surrender immediately.

SWEDEN 2018 — once a placid place .. and growing .. as bad as it can be ..

Sweden is exaggerating its further global governmental care for Universal Animal Rights .. MustBuyBook.


— VEGETATION — Leaf&Needle — was apparently intended — nervous system construct — for maintenance of basic biological NATURAL HEALTH CARE.

— NOT for any kind or sort of industrial scale energy consumption or business profiting: NOT for Trafficking Humanity, but Developing it. Say again:

What replaces the chemical reduction? 3Gy of undisturbed natural evolution, no cuts, up to 1800. 200 years later: more than 30% reduced forest area.

— »We’ll do fine with 70% for the developed 100 — we can always compensate with modern academic medical Juice». Have a nice Mad day.

   Not within the nearest 200 years [least Natural Grow-Decay cycle] will a Nature Forest bee seen again by humans — in sites like the one before the photo.

   We are apparently living in the worst of all human civilization times: STATE ignores LIFE — by state authorities  not lifting a finger to stop the mad.

Who — what — educated these?



EDUCATION in humanity is apparently on the Up.




”.. because of the curvature of space-time ..”, the general modern academic argument — see article details from ThePoint


 Time independence and Time dependence — their related differentiation is, apparently, not represented in the modern academic teaching system


The birth of related science

— .. Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, James Bradley .. Max Planck




The most prominent of all found features in nature (physics)

   The nature of Gravitation

   The nature of LIGHT

was — both — apparently fundamentally forgotten — replaced by invented substitutes — by the 1800+ modern academic cosmological idea.

   Bradley’s discovery of the Aberration phenomena (1725, published 1729) seems to have had no focus of interest at all in modern quarters, although its obvious connection to The Subject. All from 1725.

   And so neither the following electric features (Coulomb law) or the further instrumental light discoveries (Light’sPolarization) gave leading clues to such imperative details as the PotentialBarrier and the (MathPrinciples) decisive Electric Charge — and its connection to gravitation (ExperimentalConfirmations).


Modern academy 1800+ lost it all. Completely. Not a sign. Not a hint. Not a spell.



James Bradley’s discovery 1725 of the Aberration phenomena ¦ ThePerihelionPrecessions ¦ GripDeep ¦ Potential Barrier

Dmax ¦ The atomic nucleus cannot be compressed — it is already standing on a physically mathematically deducible Planck constant perfect Zero


The time independent property in gravitation — only inertial — kinetic — properties count — was never understood — and definitely not accepted (The EinsteinError) — by modern academic thinking. And so most of the elementary physics had to hide (BasicMathRanks) behind the modern academic new mind inventive ideas and bills of society. It is such a joy.

SolarCycle: TheSTARanvil

As calculated from the thermo nuclear radiation pressure (γ[p]) in related physics (a nuclear inductive heat inertia, deduced from Stefan-Boltzmann’s radiation law)

— not to be confused with the very weak (Planck temperature associated Tp ¦ ButLOOK) electro-kinetical radiation pressure (pRAD) known in modern quarters

— related physics gallantly was able to deduce the power engine inside stars in general (SunPHYSICS ¦ PULSARS), and of our Sun in specific. It has a (default) fusion tp period of 11.44112839 years (As the Sun is burning Hydrogen to Helium, a slow decrease in this period is possible: at present an average of 11.1y in some literature; Internet NASA 1Sep2004 specifies 11.4 yr). See also here in StarAnvil and How is temperature generated.


StarBASE: TheGtest 


(Our Sun is a preference [NORM] star in related physics, TNED says [P = A²ε0]).

   In the following further tests of the results

— all UniverseHistory TNED calculations collected 25Oct2018 and contained into one singe extensive IAU Test spread sheet for comparison with the internationally set and measured standard value

— the Sun’s Photometric Effect as measured and (IAU) internationally quantified


A direct hit:




was verified — through a direct hit.

— All TNED deduced K-cell related mathematics and physics included:

   The (mathematically very extensive) General Test DID verify the TNED deduced parameters.





(neutron mass mN = 1.0086652u)/u = U(mn) = 1.0086652 ¦ u = 1.66033 t27 KG = mC12/12 ¦ h = mNc0rN = 6.62559 t34 JS ¦ 18: see Atomic Mass Defect scale.


The IAU test uses this compressed TNED related physics deduced expression »WITH INNER RESOURCES» to calculate the IAU testing object: The Sun’s Mass from mSbegin at DayOne as it burns through the ages till now [mS¦nowResult — mS¦KeplerNow SHOULD = exactly 0, if TNED holds] — using the IAU standard photometric Sun effect [3.8575 T26 W± 0.0014] in a general cosmological [TheKcell] comparing cross reference with the TNED calculated results. The present calculated Sun mass will be the present Sun mass [TheKeplerCalculated from Earth’s anomalistic period] from removing the original Sun mass’ burning waste as solar wind particles and the mc²-transfer to light and heat during the burning period [present K-cell age, (20.805 Gy ¦ UniverseAge) related physics says]:

  RELATED PHYSICS: All primary Hydrogen based stars burn with a constant photometric effect from day begin to day end — as an alcalic battery with constant voltage output until it ends, says related physics. Deduced and related thermo nuclear basic details here in TheStarAnvil.

   The G and mS values are further tested and explained by precision in results from The Electric Constant.



THE IAU TEST RESULT (”a direct hit”) has afterwards been used to test other fundamental natural constants such as G — in concern of further tests on The CAP and CWON results — and whatever is stated or investigated on these constants in available sources.

   See further details in TheGtest and further in The Electric Constant and IterativeConstantTest and IAUtestDETAILS.





Continuing in ThePerihelionPrecessions.




CaseClosed: 3Dec2022 — The Perihelion Precessions


Number 5 ¦ TheRESULTaC arcSeconds/Century ¦ Tanom, planetary anomalistic period: twice the same elliptic point: r Sun-Planet mean distance


(5.1)                  (aC)u/v0(1–e2) = 3[Gm2/c0]/rc0(1–e2) × (360°·3600’’·100y/[Tanom/y]) ; 1y = 365.256363004d [WikipediaNov2022]

Tgamma c:

(5.2)                  (aC)u/v0(1–e2) = 3[Gm2/c0]/[γ(Tg °K)–1](1–e2) × (360°·3600’’·100y/[Tanom/y]) ;

Tgamma rc:

(5.2).1               (aC)u/v0(1–e2) = 3[Gm2/c0]/[ γ ( r–1([G(m2)2/4π]/akP)1/4 )–1](1–e2) × (360°·3600’’·100y/[Tanom/y]) ;

(5.2).2               (aC)u/v0(1–e2) = 3[Gm2/c0]/[ 5.093457740 T24 °K·M²/S  · r([G(m2)2/4π]/akP)–1/4](1–e2)–1 × (360°·3600’’·100y/[Tanom/y])             ; checked

(5.2).3               (aC)u/v0(1–e2) = 3[Gm2/c0][ 5.093457740 T24 °K·M²/S  · r]–1([G(m2)2/4π]/akP)1/4(1–e2)–1 × (360°·3600’’·100y/[Tanom/y])             ; checked

Tgamma r: TNED related star physics deduced thermo nuclear temperature pressure:

(5.2).2.1             (aC)u/v0(1–e2) = 3Gm2   ·   [( 5.093457740 T24 °K·M²/S )2 r([G(m2)2/4π]/akP)–2/4(1–e2)]–1 × (360°·3600’’·100y/[Tanom/y])            ; checked

(5.2).2.2             (aC)u/v0(1–e2) = (r[1–e2])–13([G3(m2)4/4πakP])[( 5.093457740 T24 °K·M²/S )–2] × (360°·3600’’·100y/[Tanom/y])                                     ; checked

5.093457740 T24 = c05/4([G(m2)2/8πak])1/4

(5.2).2.3             (aC)u/v0(1–e2) = (r[1–e2])–1              ×             4429.80849084701 M            ×          (360°·3600’’·100y/[Tanom/y])                                     ; checked

Compare Sun’s central Nuclear Star Anvil: 4012.1338 M according to related physics — initially 3281.4823 M — absolute smallest on Hydrogen-1 base: 731.0696 M


SolenT2022.ods T2 AP21 — exactly same values ¦ 5Dec2022



 γ        = c05/4[G(m2)2/8πak]1/4 = c05/4[G(m2)2/8π(2/3)2b4π5/(15h3c02)]1/4 = c05/4[3G(m2)2(15h3c02)/32b4π6]1/4 = c07/4[3G(m2)2(15h3)/32b4π6]1/4  ; checked verified.

b           =  Boltzmann constant: 1.380550287753 t23 J/°K ¦ m2 = mS = 1.98963199771721 T30 KG ¦ G = 6.67010000933003 t11 JM/[KG]² — see The Electric Constant



[G3(m2)4/4πakP] = √[G3(m2)4/8πak] = G3/2(m2)2/(8πak)1/2 ¦ × ¦ c05/4[G(m2)2/8πak]1/4 = c05/4G(m2)2/4/(8πak)1/4 ¦  = G3/2(m2)2/(8πak)2/4 × c05/4G(m2)2/4/(8πak)1/4 ;

= G2/4(m2)6/4/(8πak)1/4 × c05/4  ; [ notChecked ] ;

(5.2).2.3 = (5.1):

u/v0(1–e2)         = (r[1–e2])–1 × 4429.80849084701 M = 3[Gm2/c0]/rc0(1–e2) = 3[Gm2/c02](r[1–e2])–1    ;

u/v0(1–e2)         = (r[1–e2])–1 × 4429.80849084701 M = 3[Gm2/c0]/rc0(1–e2) = 3[Gm2/c02](r[1–e2])–1    ;

u/v0(1–e2)         = (r[1–e2])–1 × 4429.80849084701 M = 3[Gm2/c0]/rc0(1–e2) = 3[Gm2/c02](r[1–e2])–1    ; verified : JM/[KG]² · KG · [S/M]² = JM/[KG] · [S/M]²  = [M/S²] · S²  = M.

; JM/[KG] = NM·M/KG = KG[M/S²]·M · M/KG = [M/S²]·M · M = M³/S²  ¦ · [S/M]² = M.


There can be no doubt about it: same math, same values:

— Modern academy uses apparently and provably in to the last atom not understood mathematical physics for connecting a AN APPARENT INVENTED level of explaining physics OUTSIDE Rational and Logical explaining physics. What?

AllKeplerMath. Explaining planetary perihelion precessions — on exact principal principle mathematical physics [Kepler area momentum]:


StefanBoltzmannDetails: Case





A general 100% explanation of cosmology — 100% outside Einstein’s theory of relativity: a primitive, never developed, not fully discovered idea of physics.

   Precisely as IT was apprehended from square 1:

— (”The philosophers got a shock”:) Humanity in Modern Academy 1800+ lost its NATURE manifest — eager to INVENT a new one.

   Say any related argument AGAINST. We will surrender immediately:


TheCircleArgument: Details


The simple Circular application — Eddington form

   Only BASED ON THE SIMPLE FACT by the eccentricity factor (1—e²) — e=0 defines a perfect circle — the actual precession quantity (>95% for Mercury, >99% for Earth) is defined to >90%, as calculated, column % CIRCLE in the table below.

   In a perfect circular orbit (Quote) : no velocity variation exist. And thereby: no relativity theory input:

   relativity theory input on the precession phenomena — only by the >90% effect circular part — is apparently relativity theory suicide:

— As also clarified in AllKeplerMath;



SolenT2022.ods T2  AR20



The orbital eccentricy plays apparently a [very] small part in the actual quantity of the planets perihelion precessions — see also comparing values with present stated measures in TheRESULT. It apparently is the circular part — 1–e² = 1 — that generates the main quantity: >95% except for Pluto [uncertain parameters] with >93. That is apparently a death sentence for any relativistic idea of the phenomena. In a circle there is no velocity variation, and hence no relativistic mass changing idea.

Compare RelativisticMass quote. The Circle part kills relativity theory.



— By unknown reasons here, that observation seems to have slipped out of sight on the modern academic attempt to explain the phenomena.



SolenT2022.ods T2  U22




— In related physics explanation — same math — also perfect circular orbits are included.

   The phenomena [FirstLIGHTtable] apparently relies on a small temperature pressure, first two columns in the table above — N/M² in the Sun’s planetary light field [Directly from Stefan-Boltzmann’s radiation law: p = constant · T^4 · 1/3, N/M² = Pascal, Pa].

   Se further explaining mathematics on the thermal pressure detail in ButLOOK.


   In modern quarters the T^4 associates to star’s innate energy production.

   In related physics

Suns4, unknown in modern academy, although deduced from the same Stefan-Boltzmann source

— the T^4 factor has connection to the Tgamma deduced  heat degree [also connecting Sun’s Corona Physics].

   And, as seen here, its mathematics contains the modern part [ButLOOK] — applied on a level of physics apparently not familiar in modern corridors: explaining the full dynamics of the planetary perihelion precession phenomena.

   See also more in detail from ThePerihelionPrecessions and TwoARGUMENTS.



   Besides that observation, the rest of the mathematics apparently reveals unexplored domains of elementary physics in modern corridors

(thermo nuclear pressure details unnoticed in modern corridors — because of a completely different idea of WHAT a star is).

   In modern corridors some quite different ideas prevail on the origin of »general physical phenomena»

— especially on the level of relativity theory critics: so mathematically and very strongly established now during some 100y+;








What is the most prominent in this »UH attack» on modern academy teaching system?

   Star Physics. In to the bone of it. Absolutely. Mathematics. Every atom of it.

— Modern academy apparently