The following is shown in this work:
FIRST. The basic principles of the theoretic foundations of physics are presented as follows:
THIRD. Based on a more complete analysis of the classical regularities it is proved that: a) the velocities of sound and light are obtained from the same formula; b) the law of energy W, mass m and squared speed of light c ( ) is classical, and not originating from the theory of relativity; c) Newton’s laws in mechanics are corollaries of the principle (law) for the conservation of electromagnetic energy, etc.
FOURTH. It is proved that the divisions of physics, mechanics, and thermodynamics are special cases of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory (theory of the electromagnetism).
FIFTH. It is shown and proved that for basic formulations of the theory of relativity there is no experimental prove and, therefore, they do not meet the criterion of validity. I. e. these are unconfirmed hypotheses – they are solely and only hypothetical statements not having any scientific value.
This means that the theory of relativity is not a scientific
theory – it is not a science but only a hypothetical statement without
any experimental confirmation, AND BECAUSE OF THAT THERE IS NOT ANY
GROUND FOR TREATING IT AS A SCIENTIFIC PHYSICAL THEORY.
“NOWADAYS THE PHYSICAL CONCEPT OF THE WORLD IS THE MAIN PART OF THE GENUINE CULTURE OF OUR TIME.”
R I C H A R D F E Y N MA N
It is well known that any theory whatsoever does not describe the real phenomena themselves but solely their idealized (abstract) analogues, observing the scientific methodological approach expressed figuratively in the form of the following genetic scheme: observance – reasoning (process of thinking – analysis and synthesis) – experiment – scientific fact (conclusions - theory). In such an aspect this scheme represents a procedural model reflecting experimentally the measuring practice of people given by the experience and described with help of idealized objects (fragments).
The conclusions and theories obtained through that scheme are given as the most probable trustworthy knowledge, as a stage in the time of its development. Through this method the conclusions (theories) become a trustworthy truth only when the images of sensory perceptions are confirmed by experimental data. I. e. the conclusions (theories) should be confirmed experimentally.
G. Galilei was the first to express the categorical statement of the ancient thinkers that the experience is a criterion of truth, which in Leonardo da Vinci’s formulation was “Science is an experience’s child”, and introduced the language of mathematics for describing the results of observances (experience). He said the famous sentence: “The nature speaks with the language of mathematics”.
Newton was a follower of Galilei and in  had developed the physical theory called “mechanics” in 1686. However, its concept from  was given in more figurative and definitive form in  (p. 306) in 1704, where he writes: “In mathematics as in natural philosophy (the natural sciences; a note by P.P.), in the studies in difficult sciences, the method of analysis always comes before that of synthesis. This analysis consists in performing experiments and observances from which conclusions are deduced through induction. In that no other obstructions against the conclusions are admissible, except those obtained through an experiment or other trustworthy truths”. By this citation Newton affirmed that: a) he supports the scheme of methodological approach (described above); b) an invincible force of trustworthy truth is inherent to the scientific fact – SF and because of this SF is not only a trustworthy initial origin (an axiomatic prerequisite), but also a trustworthy criterion of the veracity of scientific conclusions (statements); c) the science of mathematics reflects phenomena of the natural reality or NR, which at the moment is in a considerable contradiction with the present opinion about it that mathematics as a whole as well as its notions in particular have no analogue in NR. Because of this it is proposed here
In the sense given in this essay the mathematics shows logical regularities between quantitative relations of the fragments of NR through their most universal property – their number. The number is measured by using an extremely idealized measurement unit being one count or the number one (unity), respectively, being an abstracted notion from NR of the natural quantity one object (fragment). Namely because of these grounds the notion of a non-dimensional number is used in the mathematical description of logical regularities.
Without such a description of the logical regularities no science will be able to express its laws in a concentrated form. However, this mathematical description will provide a positive unambiguous result only if its abstracted notions are strictly specified in an unambiguous sense. That is why the mathematical description is almost non-applicable, for instance, in the philosophy for its notions are strongly diffuse (being subject to ambiguous interpretations).
Here is the unique character of the science of mathematics as it reflects solely the most universal laws of NR. However, if these laws are supplemented with the concrete specificities of concrete manifestations of a correspondingly given area of NR, the theory of that given area of Nature will be obtained through their processed form.
Newton’s thesis for the mathematics as a natural science had probably provided him with the stimulus for developing the mathematical analysis. In this aspect, the known mathematician D. Hilbert in his work Grundlagen der Geometrie of 1930, in the chapter Supplement IX. Substantiation of Mathematics, gave support to Newton’s opinion by writing: “For the mathematics as for every other science, … it is necessary that something be given, namely concrete objects that should be visual as immediate sensory perception, before whatever reasoning. If logical conclusions are to be reliable these objects as well as their parts should be completely visible… I consider this basic philosophical formulation necessary not only for the mathematics but also for any scientific reasoning”. This citation is so strong that there is no need of any comments regarding the question of what kind of science the mathematics is. As a conclusion it should be emphasized that it is like an aspect of a universal logical foundation of the all-embracing knowledge for the whole NR – the Universe.
This conclusion requires, however, that on its basis the concrete logical foundation of every science be formed as well as the basic regularities for that case that originate in a genetic aspect from it and the given circumstances (realities or conditions) of NR.
The notion of a logical foundation of physics is a synthesis of the minimum necessary and sufficient number of experimentally confirmed fundamental physical laws having the rank of fundamental principles or FP. Due to their wide envelopment of real material manifestations (properties, phenomena, processes of force interactions, etc.) FP in essence are logical laws, too, and possess the invincible demonstrative power of a trustworthy scientific truth. As a result of their essence these are also the first and unconditional criterion of the veracity of all scientific statements and formulations both as an initial basis and as corollaries, deductions or conclusions. With these properties of theirs FP and their implications as conclusions and laws (principles) are a fulcrum both as initial (starting) formulations and for the recognition of new solutions (scientific statements) that can even reject an approved theory having been considered an unconditional and unshakable truth.
Based on FP of LFP It should be possible to give answers to those questions that were formulated in the form of ideas by ancient thinkers (philosophers). The most important of these are: a) “Are the matter and its manifestations as fragments of NR (the Universe) homogeneous in nature, and if this is true what is their nature concretely in a qualitative aspect?” b) “Whether the matter and its manifestations as a whole for NR are constant or variable with time and space in quantitative aspect, i. e. is it possible that something originate from nothing and vice versa?” and c) “Is the reason for the observed continuous changes in the fragments of NR external or internal for NR itself?”.
Answers to these and other ancient questions are given by LFP through the following fundamental principles.
A.1. Principle of observability – PO
PO is an actualized expression of the ancient methodology of the formulation that the images of NR reflected by our sensations into the human brain, after their abstracting and interpreting, become the basis of forming the notions called scientific facts or SF. The totality of these SF is the initial resource (raw material) from which adequate statements (conclusions, deductions) with the status of trustworthy truths (laws) for NR are engendered (formed) through the process of thinking.
From this definition of PO it follows that in chronological and genetic respect it is the firstest (primary initial) principle for the origination of knowledge. And in methodological respect it is one of the fundamental principles as an inseparable fragment of LFP.
A.2. Principle of the electromagnetic nature of matter – PENM
PENM is an actualized answer of the ancient question for the homogeneity – for the material unity of NR. In the sense that the matter (in its field or substance forms), as a carrier and generator of the multiple-diversity manifestations of both the fragments and the whole of NR, is solely and only of electromagnetic nature (essence), because of which in its wholeness it is genetically homogeneous – unitary.
The first to give this answer, even indirectly, but without any alternative, was Isaac Newton in  in 1704 through the invincible force of the experimental fact as it follows from the statements: “All bodies absorb and emit light”, “The bodies are transformed into light, and the light into bodies”, and “These are normal natural processes”.
Actualizing this SF found by Newton ÍÔ, namely that the nature of bodies’ matter and that of light are the same, through the modern concept of the matter of light being of electromagnetic nature, imposes automatically and without any alternative the truth that the nature of the matter of NR is electromagnetic only. And this is achieved with the invincible force of the logic of experimental facts as these are a material expression of the logical necessity. Therefore, as a trustworthy truth is imposed the conclusion that the field and substance forms of matter and all its manifestations in universal sense are solely of electromagnetic nature.
This conclusion is also confirmed by the modern physics as follows.
A.2.1. It is assumed that the elementary particles: electron – e-, positron – e+, photons – , , as well as the structures formed by then are fragments of electromagnetic matter. Moreover, under certain conditions of interaction they can be transformed from some forms into other, both in structural and quantitative respects, but in observance of the corresponding conservation laws. These processes are described with the known reactions:
The following electromagnetic regularities are confirmed by the reactions of transformation:
First. The substance form of matter can be transformed into the field one and vice versa.
Second. The matter and manifestations of protons and neutrons are electromagnetic.
Third. The kinetic electromagnetic matter and energies can be transformed into substance and field forms (fragments) of matter.
A.2.2. a) Because the atoms as a whole are structured of electronic envelops (orbitals) and a nucleus of protons and neutrons it follows that they are fragments of electromagnetic matter; b) therefore, the molecules that are structured of atoms are fragments of electromagnetic matter, too; c) the interaction forces as a manifestation between fragments of electromagnetic matter are also of electromagnetic nature, and in particular such are the forces of cohesion and adhesion; d) because deformations in the substance form of matter are engendered following the change in adhesion forces between atoms and molecules, it results that the deformations in matter are electromagnetic phenomena, and e) because the deformations originating from the electromagnetic matter are at the basis of the wave processes of the substance and field forms of the matter, it follows that all material wave processes are electromagnetic phenomena. Therefore, the “mechanical” wave processes are of electromagnetic nature, too.
In  (p. 259) Einstein wrote: “The task of my works is the further simplification of the theory and … unification of the gravitational and electromagnetic fields … . It is now and only now that we know that the forces with which the electrons are traveling along ellipses around the nucleuses in atoms are the same forces that move the Earth in its annual travel around the Sun…”
From the above presentation about PENM it is obvious that an unambiguous answer has been given to the ancient thinkers in the sense that the material unitariness of the World (NR) has been really and experimentally demonstrated as the matter and its manifestations are solely of electromagnetic nature.
A.3. Principle of conservation of matter and energy – PCME
This PCME is an actualized expression of the ancient idea for the indestructibility and increatibility of the unitary matter.
A.3.1. On the notions of matter, quantity of matter (body) and mass
Matter is the subject of the science of physics, which is the essence itself of its physical manifestations. In this sense, for the physics, the matter is a tandem (unitariness or complex) of its multiple manifestations in time and space, and not some compact object (fragment).
In the science the matter tandem is a non-explicitly idealized (abstracted) object that is an initial origin and basic (fundamental) supporting logical point (base) in the conceptual interpretation of NR. And instead of the notion of quantity of matter, its abstraction called mass is used in the section of dynamics in physics. Here, the meaning of the notion of mass as an idealization of the notion of quantity of matter is without any volume or structure and reduced to a non-dimensional point, but this single mass carries and generates the rest of the multiform manifestations, including also the properties of gravitation and inertia of its corresponding quantity of matter. At that Newton who was the first to introduce the idealization of mass required, without any ostentation, that it should always be in the center of gravity of the material fragment participating in dynamic processes. This was Newton who first applied purposefully that approach and first gave the method of calculating the center of gravity of the bodies known from Galilei. In this sense Newton wrote in  in the “definition I” (p. 23): “The quantity of matter (mass) is a measure…”, and further below: “Further on I shall understand that quantity under the name body or mass. Determining the mass is performed through the gravity of bodies… ”. And in prefaces of the editor Roger Cotes to the second edition of  (p. 7) he wrote: “The gravities of bodies at equal distances from the center of Earth are related to one another as the quantities of matters or masses”. In  (p. 504) Newton wrote: “It has been found that all bodies in the neighborhood of Earth are attracted to it in direct proportion to the quantity of matter of each of them.” From the citations above it can be seen clearly and obviously their convincing strength, and this also shows the invincible force of the corresponding experimental facts, too, that both Newton and the experimental practice unconditionally and unambiguously confirm SF that there exists only one single notion of mass and it is an idealization of the notion of matter or its synonym – the notion of body. It is namely in this sense that the notion of mass should be used in physics – in its section of dynamics.
A.3.2. Principle of conservation of matter m and energy W: PCME
PCME is an empirical regularity of invincible demonstrative power for the truth of an experimentally proven SF. This principle is an expression of the indestructibility and increatibility of matter, which had been also confirmed by M. Planck who stated that in all material processes of force interaction there is only a transformation of the tandem matter – (m) – energy (W) – T(m - W) from some types of quantities and structures – forms – into others at preserving their initial nature. The quantitative relationship T(m - W) is an expression of the principle of conservation of the values of matter – m and energy – W for the fragment, or for N fragments in a closed system the principle is described by
a) b) ; c) (A.3-1)
(A.3-1) is also the mathematical expression (description) of the cause-and-effect link that determines logically the law (principle) of causality for every natural manifestation of the matter-energy tandem. In that aspect the causality as a notion is called a common sense or a transformation of one state of the tandem into another.
The circumstance, that through the interaction of its fragments the matter exerts in essence a self-influences on itself and as a result of this its new forms and structures emerge, comes to show that the matter is internally active – it is not passive, and because of that it is itself the reason for its own manifestations, i. e. this is Spinosa’s Causa Sui. And all this is an internal property being a consequence of the fundamental PCME.
A.3.3. The law of interaction – LI is a corollary of PCME
For a closed system of N fragments, in accordance with (A.3-1), it is required that the changes in tandems as well as their components (matters and energies) are of equal absolute values and reverse signs, so that their sums in a closed system are equal to zero. Assuming the indices “o” and “p” for transmitted and received parts of fragments, respectively, the law of interaction will be described by the set of equations:
a) ; b) =0 (A.3-2)
Here, it is possible that i= j because some of the components
m and D W could be equal to zero. However, if
there is an interaction there will always be an exchange of matters and
energies as well. So, there is always both
A.3.4. The force as a corollary of PCME is a derivative of energy dW, and is measured with the work dA performed by force along the path , Newton calling the force with the name “action” that is the reason for changing the state (velocity) of bodies. From the above presentation it follows that
a) ; b) ; c) (A.3-3)
From (A.3-3) it results for the sense of force , that it is energy exchanged between the fragments for a unity of distance (path). At that, taking into account the circumstance that and are the transmitted and received energies for a unity of path, respectively, then in accordance with (A.3-2) III as well as with Newton it follows that is an “action”, and is a “counteraction”, i. e.
a) b) ® c); d) ; (A.3-4)
a) ; b)
c); d) (A.3-5)
B.1. Unitariness of the substance and field forms of matter
It follows from § A.2 PENM that all field manifestations of the matter as the electromagnetic – EMF and gravitational – GF fields are solely of electromagnetic nature. However, due to the different structures of their carriers that are their generators as well, and this is electromagnetic matter in different structures of its substance and field forms, there comes the corollary that these different fields have different characteristic traits, too. Here is the place to emphasize that for the carriers that are generators of EMF and GF it is assumed to be called charges, for EMF – electric charges – qe, and respectively for GF – gravitational charges – m or fragments of matter – m or density of matter - rm. For the characteristic (basic) traits it can be assumed that they are:
First. In the most general case the electromagnetic fields are characterized with their alternative components: electric – E and magnetic – H. They are generated from bipolar electric charges +qe, (which are the primary substantial structural element of the electromagnetic matter) and their intensities are proportional ( = ) to their first power.
a) ± E= ± qe; b) ± H= ± qe, (B.1-1)
and their basic regularities are described by Maxwell’s equations.
Second. The densities of the electromagnetic matter of EMF and GF are (see § (B.1-1), B.2-(B.2-4)):
a)> 0; b)> 0; c) > 0 , (B.1-2)
where:and wH are the densities of their energies.
a) > 0; b) > 0; (B.1-3)
where c – the wave (phase) speed of the electromagnetic waves; eo and mo – electrostatic and electromagnetic permeabilities of vacuum and rm – the density of matter – of the alternative components, which is always of positive polarity like the energy because they are raised to second power.
Third. It is assumed and experimentally confirmed that GF is engendered by the matter, i. e.
a) < 0
b) < 0 (B.1-4)
a) ; b) (B.1-6)
where: g is the gravitational constant.
As GF is generated by the electromagnetic matter (it is the charge of GF) and as a result GF is a function of the square of EMF, for the sequence (genetic and mathematical) there is a trustworthy logical ground GF to be called secondary (quadratic) electromagnetic field – SEMF.
The genetic homogeneity of EMF and GF (SEMF) is an indication that they are a unitary genetic whole. Its (describing) equations of Maxwell (for EMF) and those of Poisson (B.1-6) (for GF - SEMF) can be and in essence they are genetically and mathematically connected in one genetically homogeneous system. As on one hand it can describe the manifestations of NR (as a whole), and from the other it is a synthesis of the equations of Maxwell and Poisson, it can be called a
SYSTEM of unitariness of the field and substance forms of manifestations of matter
EQUATIONS OF THE UNITARY MATTER
From the system (B.1-7) it follows the conclusions:
First. It describes the unitariness of the regularities both of the field and substance forms of matter.
Second. At conditions re=0, it describes the unitariness of the electromagnetic waves together with GF engendered by them through the corresponding density rm of their matter.
Third. At conditions re=0 and there is a reflection of the scientific fact that there is a mutual connection between the substance and field forms of fragments of NR for EMF and GF and their generators (electric and gravitational charges). This concerns all real structural levels of the electromagnetic matter (the matter in general), including that of the elementary particles. Therefore, in such an aspect there exists an indirect (implicit) regularity between EMF, GF and the elementary particles.
B.2. Velocities of the “mechanical” and electromagnetic waves
As it has been already proved in § A.2, item A.2.2., the mechanical wave processes are electromagnetic by nature. I. e. the “mechanical” waves are electromagnetic of the substance form of the electromagnetic matter. Because of this circumstance the mechanical and electromagnetic wave processes are described with wave equations of the same structure and physical meaning and having a single solution
a) ; b) (B.2-1)
where: y is the characteristic quantity defining the corresponding parameter of the wave process for time t and distance r; w – the wave (phase) velocity; yo – the amplitude of y; w =2.p .n – the angular frequency; n – the frequency of the wave process.
If the pressure designated by r or , respectively the elasticity module E=r =s =F/s is multiplied and divided by the length it is obtained  (§ 3.1.1, p. 48, eq. (3.1-15)).
J=kg.m: V=m3 (B.2-2)
As Maxwell wrote in  (§ 638, p. 512) and (§ 792, p. 563) of his treatise “On the Electricity and Magnetism”: “… We should look at the magnetic and electromagnetic energies as kinetic ones…” and “For that reason in the medium through which waves are propagated there is a pressure in a direction normal to the waves that is numerically equal to the energy in a unit of volume”. With these citations Maxwell also confirmed (B.2-2), where the density of energy . At this condition for the known solution of (B.2-1) in respect to – the wave velocity is obtained as
where: w and r are the densities of energies and matters (masses). If the values of these quantities for mechanical or electromagnetic waves are placed in (B.2-3) instead of the quantities themselves, the squares of their corresponding wave velocities will be obtained.
a); b) (B.2-4)
From (B.2-4) there emerges the possibility to determine from (B.2-3) from the same formula the velocities of wave processes, unambiguously in physical sense, both for the substance and field forms of matter. This is motivated by both their identical wave equations and their unitary solution. And as a corollary of these circumstances it is proved that: first, the wave velocities vo and c have the same physical meaning of the properties by which they are characterized; second, due to the different quantitative values of w and r it follows also that .
a) ; b) ;® c) (B.2-5)
a fact that is experimentally confirmed, and third, for both vo and c it holds the experimentally confirmed law of the Doppler effect - DE, i. e.
a) ; b) (B.2-6)
where: is the velocity of the mobile observer.
DE was deduced by Doppler in 1842, and experimentally confirmed later (in 1845 and 1867). Nowadays it is being used successfully in acoustic and optical practices for resolving many technological problems in the industry. In the special theory of relativity - STR Einstein deduces DE in  (§ 7, p. 26) in 1905. Here the deduction of vo and c is done solely on the basis of the classical physics and according to its condition of trustworthy truth both vo and c, on one hand, and DE, on the other, have been experimentally confirmed and find application in practice. Principal conclusion from DE (B.3-6) is that in respect to a mobile observer the velocities of wave processes could be both higher and lower than their wave velocities vo and c. This conclusion was also indicated by Einstein in STR –  (§ 7) in 1905, irrespective that he also wrote in  (§ 5, p. 20): “It follows further on that the velocity of light c at its adding with a velocity lower than the velocity of light cannot be changed”.
B.3. Increasing the quantity of the matter of bodies and engendering simultaneously an inertial force as a result of their acceleration.
Figuratively said, in order to achieve a good visibility, an electron will be used as a calculation model, and then a generalization for a body in general will be made, i. e. for a material object with the corresponding quantity of matter (mass).
B.3.1. Increasing the quantity of matter of bodies with their velocities.
Let e- (e+) with an electric charge qe for time t at acceleration obtain a velocity t. According to the law of Biot and Savart, a magnetic field is engendered around the electron under the conditions indicated
a) ; b) c) (B.3-1)
According to § B.1, eqs. (B.1-2) and (B.1-2), the densities of the energy – we and the matter – rme of the electron’s field at distance and for velocity are:
a) ; b) ; c) (B.3-2)
a); b) ; c) (B.3-3)
Their differentials (after transformation) are:
For this differential equation after integrating at the conditions:
a) ® b) (B.3-7)
a) ® b) (B.3-8)
it is obtained
a) ; b) (B.3-10)
where: reo is the calculation (classical) radius of the electron. The individual increments of density and matter of the electron as a result of the velocity v are:
I. e. they are equal to the density and respectively to the matter of the magnetic field of the electron engendered by the velocity (B.3-1).a. That is why with the change in velocity the increments (B.3-11) are changed, too.
Increments of magnetic energies of the electron also correspond to these increments of the matter at v= 0.
where: weo=reo.c2 and Weo=meo.c2 are the respective densities and the electron’s internal energies themselves, i. e. at v=0 ® wH=0.
These increments of the energies correspond to Maxwell’s citations that indicate in § B.2 – after eq. (B.2-2) in  (§ 638 and § 792) that the magnetic energy should be considered a kinetic one.
Because in mechanics the velocity of bodies is v<< c, then << 1, and it follows:
a) ® b) ;
The results obtained are also valid for the positive electrons – positrons – e+.
In § A.2 – PENM, it has been proved by eqs. (A.2-1) and (A.2-2) (and they have also been experimentally confirmed), that in the interaction between electrons (e- and e+) under corresponding conditions it is possible to be obtained photons g , protons – p, and neutrons – n, i. e. all structural elements of the substance (atoms and molecules) and field (photon) forms of the electromagnetic matter. Therefore, as a whole, the matter consists implicitly of charges of different polarity, connected in re-structured form, and their respective fields, and from this fact it follows trustworthy the conclusion that the above-presented regularities (B.3-9), (B.3-10), (B.3-11), (B.3.12) and (B.3-13) are correspondingly valid for the elementary particles and for the fragments of matter. I. e. it really holds the trustworthy truth being also an experimental fact - SF of invincible force of truth that the quantity of matter of a material object (body) (m=) and its respective energy vary in accordance with its velocity.
Here, however, immediately emerges the question about how and where this additional matter (B.3-11) and its corresponding energy (B.3-12) are delivered.
This additional energy called and known as kinetic energy originates and is delivered by an external electric field – primary and secondary , through the forces
a) ; b) (B.3-14)
that are written in the form of (A.3-3) from § A3 as follows:
a) ; b) (B.3-15)
In this sense the external field – or , through interaction with an electric charge qe or a body of quantity of matter (mass) – mT exchanges energies (the external field gives to qe or mT, and the latter receive (absorb) them, the energies absorbed by the electron or body being accumulated as kinetic energies).
a) ; b) (B.3-16)
Here (B.3-16)b is the written expression of PCME in a closed system.
I. e. the increase in the matter of the body mTo from the case at v=0 to v= 0 is
a) ; ® b) (B.3-17)
B.3.2. Engendering (inducing) of the inertial force – a corollary of PCME
From § A.3 – PCME in essence determines the trustworthy regularity consisting in the fact that the material objects (bodies) obligatorily possess the internal property called inertia. It is exhibited because they in their nature and in accordance with Causa Sui, the material objects should always counteract immediately against any change in the quantity of matter, respectively of their energy, as these are in tandem.
For example, let imagine for the electron a plane N that passes through its center and the axis of its acceleration . At a distance r from the center of the electron in plane N the area dS=1.dr should be separated. It has a size of unity (1) along the axis and a size along the radius (distance) , going out from the electron’s center. According to  (§ 5.5), p. 82, eq. (5.5-7)) the flow of the magnetic induction (B.3-1)c through area dS=1.dr is as follows because it is perpendicular to N, respectively to dS:
This elementary flow envelops the electron only along a unit of length around its center and has the same axis as that of the acceleration. For its integration limits from the calculated radius of its electron reo to infinity (µ ) the flow that envelops the electron per a unit of length through its center is obtained
According to Faraday’s law, at changing this flow with time, an electromotive field (EMoF) of direction opposite to that of the acceleration is induced in the center of the electron:
This EMoF has a direction opposite to the external electric field (B.3-14), respectively to the acceleration . At these conditions an interaction between and qe, respectively a force, are engendered
a) , where b) (B.3-21)
where, is equal in value and opposite in sign to the driving force , respectively to , if GF is the driving one, because the electron has also GF - or
a) ; b) (B.3-22)
It is namely the physical meaning of the force that in accordance with PCME - § A.3 is an expression of the counteracting property of inertia for the initial quantity of the matter-energy tandem that was called by Newton inertial force of the body with mass mT and is
a) b) (B.3-23)
Here, it is necessary to emphasize that the process of changing the matter-energy tandem through the acting force - is simultaneously (synchronically) accompanied by the induction of the inertial force - .
B.3.3. Conclusion to B.3
a) ® b) ; at (B.4-1)
In this sense, in Newton’s physics the addition of velocities and of the objects A and B is reduced to the addition of their impulses at mvA= mvB...=1, and as a result the resulting velocity is
a) or b) (B.4-2)
However, for the dependence of the matter (mass) mv on the velocity (B.3-11) in respect to the reference system – RS-K, for which it is assumed here to be between the objects A and B, for which (for convenience and simplicity) it is assumed to be moving along a straight line with velocities vA<c and vB<c in respect to RS-K that is located between them, let the values of their matters at rest be moA= moB= mo, and in respect to RS-K they will be
a) ; b) : : , (B.4-3)
and the values of their matters in respect to one another are:
their corresponding impulses being:
a) PAB = mAB.vA; b) PBA = mBA.vB = mAB.vB (B.4-5)
At moA = moB = mo
1, according to  (§ 5.3, p. 75, eq. (5.3-10)) their sum is
After raising (B.4-6) to the second power and solving it for UAB it follows
a) only for b) vA<c and vB<c (B.4-7)
An analogue of this law (B.4-7) in the special theory of relativity – STR is called formula for adding the velocities in  (§ 5, p. 20). It is obtained through Lorentz transformations – LT. As LT are deduced through the principle of permanence of the speed of light – PPSL according to which in  (§ 5, p. 20-21) it is valid for:
a) vA<c and vB<c or vA<c; vB<c, and not only at: a) vA<c, vB<c (B.4-8)
or in other words the analogue formula from STR is not compatible with (B.4-7), because the laws for the masses of (B.4-3) are not valid under conditions (B.4-8)a because at v=c, mAK=mo(1-1)-1/2=µ : mBK= mo(1-1)-1/2=µ , which is unrealistic under conditions a) vA=c and vB<c or vA=c; vB=c, as then it follows from (B.4-8):
a) vA=c and vB<c or vA=c; vB<c ® b) (B.4-9)
In STR  (§ 5) it is assumed that with this result (B.4-9) PPSL is proved, without taking into account the circumstance that LT are deduced on the basis of PPSL, and for that reason the corollaries LT and (B.4-9) are not arguments for the initial base what PPSL is.
B.5. Newton’s laws in mechanics are electromagnetic
It is well known that for the first time such a statement was made by M. Planck. Starting from Newton’s formulations in mechanics where
a) ; ® b) v <<c; c) ® (B.5-1)
and applying them for kinetic energy Wk from (B.3-12)b and impulse :
a) ; b); c) (B.5-2)
will be, in a physical sense, a particular case of ectromagnetic laws. For historic reasons they were called mechanical, because in 1868 (when “Principles…”  by Newton were printed) there did not exist any electromagnetic theory of the electromagnetic matter by Maxwell, etc., as well as, for instance, (B.3-10)a; (B.3-12)b. And Newton based on observations of natural phenomena and ancient ideas concerning the conservation of matter, movement, etc., intuitively postulated the three laws (axioms – , (p. 38)) that he also described by using the mathematical analysis he had developed. These laws written in a mathematical form will be:
The first law of Newton says:
At a) Wk=cte ; ® b) v=cte ; ® v=0 or v= 0=cte (B.5-3)
The second law of Newton says:
a) ; b) ;® c) (B.5-4)
The third law of Newton says:
The action is equal to counteraction or
a) = –; ® b) + = 0 (B.5-5)
Because Newton called the force also an action as a cause for changing the state of the body – for accelerating it up to . For this circumstance, under the notion of counteraction he meant a force in the reverse direction of – counteraction -= -. and respectively exchange energy.
Mainly as a result of these laws Newton’s mechanics was developed, and with that these three laws were proved. Under the present conditions they are of electromagnetic nature, but with an approximate numerical value in accordance with (B.5-1).
Namely because of this circumstance Newton’s laws are electromagnetic, and Newton’s mechanics is a particular case in the sense it is an inseparable fragment of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory for the electromagnetic matter.
B.6. Principle of relativity and G. Galilei’s transformations
B.6.1. Principle of relativity - PR
The principle of relativity was formulated for the first time by G. Galilei in 1632. For this PR there exists various editorial definitions that are, however, equivalent in meaning, one of them being: “The laws of physics are the same as concerns the description in all inertial reference systems - IRS”. In the present study, however, that definition is used which reflects it in nearly most explicit form as a consequence of § A.3 – PCME. The physical processes (phenomena, laws, etc.), that are observed in IRS – Ko and other IRS – K1, K2, and so on, do not depend on their velocities in respect to IRS - Ko, if they are constant and rectilinear, i. e. at
; ; ; (B.6-1)
In this form PR has always been valid as it is now, when it is demonstrated in this study that all laws are of electromagnetic nature, i. e. they are electromagnetic manifestations of the electromagnetic matter – of NR. This was confirmed:
a) by Maxwell in his book “Matter and Motion” (1873), where it is proved that the electromagnetic processes (phenomena, laws, etc.) in a given IRS – K do not depend on its rectilinear displacement with a constant speed (B.6-1);
b) by Einstein in STR  (§ 3, p. 15), where he wrote: “… the velocity of light measured in a traveling system is also equal to c (c is the wave velocity of the electromagnetic waves – a note by P.P.)”;
c) by the experiment of Michelson, performed independently in 1881, and later by the joint experiments with the chemist Morley (Michelson-Morley experiment).
Thus, PR is a physical principle of general validity, for all physical processes that are electromagnetic. In this sense it is also valid specifically for the light processes.
B.6.2. Galilei transformations– GT
For the transition through the mathematical description of processes that are object of PR from one IRS – K1 into another IRS – K2 it emerges the question of what equations should be used in order to obtain comparable descriptions, i. e. it should exist such a set of equations written in the Euclidean geometry – EG called Galilei transformations – GT.
In the different IRS – K1 the process considered is described by different coordinates . However, under condition (B.6-1) they are comparable to one another through the correlation relationships of GT for the general case:
a) ; b) (B.6-2)
If the displacements of IRS – KI are performed along straight lines parallel to axis x of IRS – K relationships (B.6-2) are transformed into
a) ; b) : c) : d) (B.6-3)
From (B.6-1), (B.6-2) and (B.6-3) the relationships
a); b) ; c) ; d); d) (B.6-4)
The relations between velocities w and wi and accelerations and are:
a) ; b) (B.6-6)
In the case when (the velocity of light) it follows from (B.6-6):
a) ; b) ; (B.6-7)
From the above presentation for PR and GT it follows the categorical conclusion: PR and GT are of general validity for mechanics and electrodynamics.
The reasons for this unconditional statement are: a) § A.2 – PENM and b) § 5 – B.5, according to which the mechanics is a particular case of electrodynamics.
B.7. The thermodynamical processes are electromagnetic
The first law of thermodynamics is a direct expression of PCME applied to the thermal energy – Q, i. e. it is electromagnetic, and its mathematical form for a given object is
a) ; ® b) at (B.7-1)
where: U is the internal energy; A – the work performed by Q.
The second law of thermodynamics has several verbal variants. It is that of Clausius formulated in 1850 that is used most often. It says: “In natural processes the heat cannot be transferred from a less heated body of temperature T1 to a more heated body of temperature T2>T1”.
M. Planck wrote in the journal Ann. d. Physik, Bd. 1., 1900: “For the successful understanding of the electromagnetic nature of heat exchange there occurs the urgent task of giving a meaning to the second law of thermodynamics in its application to the movement of thermal energy in pure electromagnetic aspect, and of proving it if possible. Of course, the starting point will be our opinion for thermal phenomena that the processes of radiation and absorption of thermal energy are electromagnetic.” In such an aspect the task here is to prove that the laws of thermodynamics are electromagnetic, i. e. it remains to prove that its second law is electromagnetic, too.
Indeed, if thermal energy is irradiated from a unit area from the surface of a body with temperature T the average density f of the energy of photon flow with velocity c is
a) ; ® b) ; c) (B.7-2)
where: h is Planck’s constant; nij – a photon of frequency j, and i is the number of photons ni of frequency j. Here frequency j is limited to j<1018 Hz in order to be excluded the gamma-photons, the interaction mechanism of which is different from that of photons with j<1018 Hz; KB – Boltzmann constant.
In Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory the pressure p of electromagnetic waves (photons) for units of area and time in  (§ 792, p. 563) is connected with (B.7-2) as follows:
where: f is the force on a unit of area S.
Therefore, if to two adjacent points k and l at a distance of from a given body there correspond pk>pl: >®>, then between k and l there acts a force
from Tk to Tl that moves the photons (elementary carriers of the heat energy - wf) until their temperatures are equalized, i. e.
Or, if the function of state S introduced by Clausius and called entropy and Boltzmann formula about it are used, then, in accordance with  (§ 5.9.2.), the difference between entropies and is
a) , and for (B.7-4) ® b) (B.7-6)
In such a way it is proved that the second law of thermodynamics is also electromagnetic, from where it follows the conclusion that the thermodynamic processes are electromagnetic and the thermodynamics is a part of the electromagnetic theory.
C. The physics – a beginning of the unitariness of sciences
An initial beginning of the scientific creative process as an act of reasoning is the resource in the human brain (consciousness) from the reflected and accumulated images (notions) of the manifestations of the Universe. These are the facts from the natural reality – NR of the reality we can see. The act of reasoning in most general sense has two boundary (extreme) objectives:
The creative process consists at the same time of logical connection of experimental facts (manifestations) and inclusion of basic integrating ideas (trends). For a specific investigation the latter are a reflection of apparently external, already proven trustworthy scientific truths that have a wider scope. The scientific statements formed that generalize the most general or all-embracing properties (manifestations) for the whole NR receive a status (rank) of fundamental principles – FP. A totality of such FP forms the logical foundation of each science – LFP.
The present study has demonstrated that the logical foundation of physics – LFP consists of three FP: PO, PENM, and PCME.
The thorough analysis of LFP shows that it is at the basis of LF of all natural sciences - LFS, and for each of them it is also necessary to add to it the corresponding FP specific for each science. For instance: for the chemistry these can be the principle of valence, Mendeleev’s law, etc.; for the biology these are the general laws (principles) for the living cell, etc.
The affirmation and introduction of LFP as a foundation-laying and initial basis for LFs of all natural science is also a reason for new trends and their creative development in intensive and extensive aspects. For instance, after the development of quantum mechanics (electrodynamics) it has been rejected the opinion about the science of chemistry as independent from the physics because its basic notions and laws have been given physical explanation. However, its specific and chemical laws (principles) have not been rejected. And on the contrary, they became more through, i. e. with the physicalization of chemistry they were raised to a higher level – and deserved more esteem. This is due to the fact that physics does not assimilate the other natural sciences, but on the contrary it amplifies their flourishing basis. In this aspect it could be forecasted that the development coming from a more thorough physical knowledge would be also the basis for the universal development and thoroughness of the other natural sciences. This formulation is the beginning of the required unitariness of sciences on the basis of LFP for the unitary electromagnetic matter.
All the results in the present study are based on irrefutable, generally recognized trustworthy scientific truths that are experimentally confirmed and widely used in science, technology, and in life as a whole. An additional basis of these is the non-ambiguous solution of three key problems:
a) The matter always exhibits itself through the integral properties of its fragments that are presented quantitatively. And the notion of mass is a theoretical abstract (idealization) of the notion of matter. The quantity of matter is measured with its corresponding quantity of mass and vice versa.
b) The Universe – the natural reality (the matter and its manifestations) is in qualitative respect solely and only of an electromagnetic essence both in its substance and field forms of manifestation. The unitary field of matter is of electromagnetic nature as a genetic unitariness of electromagnetic and gravitational fields, for which there is a corresponding most general and unitary set of equationa that describes it.
c) Here it has been successfully used the fact known from the classical physics that the numerical value of the elasticity module is equal to the numerical value of the density of energy. This relationship was found by Maxwell (in a different variant) for the electromagnetic field as early as in 1873. In this case the square of the wave (phase) speed is equal to the ratio between the density of energy and the density of mass. And the value of velocity is different for the mechanical and electromagnetic waves for the different values of densities of energies and masses but their physical properties are the same, i. e. the velocity of light and that of the mechanical waves in elastic medium have the same properties.
The author’s opinion is that the present study is a successful attempt of laying the initial stone in the construction of a unitary theory of knowledge.
It should be noted here that the generalization of the experimental scientific facts leads to the trustworthy truth that the natural reality is solely and only of electromagnetic essence or nature,and this truth is in essence a fundamental principle and serves as an initial basis for all natural sciences.
In the presented aspect for the theoretical foundations
of physics, this study is an attempt for another approach of attaining
unitariness of the natural sciences.
Criticism of the theory of relativity – TR
A. Einstein , (p. 560), 1948.
(A worldly maxim)
The author P. Penchev feels being obliged to present a motivation, even a short one, for the fact that neither formulations of TR, nor TR as a whole have been used in the proposed model of TFP.
In that aspect, in the process of creating the model of TFP there emerged the question of the existence of experimental physical facts that could not be explained without TR or in other words: Do the scientific foundations of physical knowledge not need also basic formulations of TR? It turns out that the physical regularities of the natural reality – NR could be also obtained and interpreted trustworthily without any principles of TR, and even in contradiction with it. This is, namely, the first reason for TR not to participate in TFP. However, this circumstance is a consequence of the fact, that as a whole TR is not a trustworthily and experimentally confirmed theory about the Universe.
PS.2. Some essential critical statements for TR made by Einstein himself
2.1. In  (p. 762) Einstein wrote: “The contents of the general theory of relativity (GTR for brevity – a note by P.P.) is formally described with the equation:
where: Rik is the tensor of Ricci; R – an invariant of Rik; c – a coefficient of proportionality, and Tik – tensor of the energy”.
2.2. In  (p. 286) he wrote for (PS-1): “The second member of the left-hand part is added because of formal considerations, namely: the left-hand part is written in such a way that its divergence … be identically equal to zero. The right-hand part includes everything that cannot be united in the unitary field theory. Of course, I have never doubt even for a minute that such a formulation is a temporary way out of the situation only, that has been undertaken with the purpose of creating some complete description of the general principle of relativity. In essence, this formulation is not anything more than a theory of gravitation that is somehow artificially relieved from the unitary field of unknown structure”.
2.3. In  (p. 217) Einstein also wrote for (PS-1): “However, it (he meant TR described by (PS-1) – a note by P.P.) is like a building, one aisle of which is of exquisite marble (the left-hand part), and the other of low-quality wooden material (the right-hand part)”.
2.4. In  (p. 603) Einstein wrote for (PS-1): “The equation of the field without cosmological member, introduced earlier by us, is ad hoc”.
2.5. In  (p. 286) he wrote: “The task of the “Unitary theory of the physical field” is such as to re-new GTR on the basis of unification of the electromagnetic and gravitational fields”.
2.6. And in  (p.126) he wrote: “… to finish the foundation of GTR it is also necessary that the electromagnetic field be introduced into it”.
2.7. In  (p. 235) he wrote: “However, it cannot be claimed that those parts of GTR, considered completed by now, are a whole and satisfactory foundation of physics…”.
2.8. In  (p. 662) he wrote: “The general theory of relativity is still uncompleted in the sense that the general principle of relativity can be satisfactorily applied only for the gravitational field, and not for all fields”.
2.9. And after the presented in the above-given citations, in  (p. 238), Einstein underlined his frustration from GTR by writing: “So far, we have to acknowledge that we have no general theoretical foundations for the physics (TFP – a note by P.P.)”.
2.10. After 1948, in  (p. 560) Einstein wrote: “As far as my scientific activity is concerned, for the time being … I cannot overcome all mathematical difficulties that do not allow me to confirm or reject my general field theory.”
From these statements of Einstein regarding TR it follows some categorical conclusions:
First: TR is neither complete, nor adequate as a whole theory of the Universe as it is only a temporary way out of the situation, and this is valid for the gravitational field only.
Second: In this aspect, it follows from the first conclusion that some of the basic formulations of TR are not correct as well.
Third: Einstein expected that later on some scientists would develop not a temporary, but fully adequate theory encompassing all fields.
Generalizing the ideas present in the citations given above clears the Einstein’s statements as follows: a) that (PS-1) being GTR as contents does not reflect wholly the natural reality – NR as two of its members are nearly a symbolic description only of their contents; b) and in the aspect of item a) and in essence as a whole (PS-1) is not trustworthy because it “is only a temporary way out of the situation”; c) (PS-1) as contents, even if (PS-1) is trustworthy, is not a general theory for NR because it does not contain the electromagnetic field as well; d) (PS-1) is not complete, and for this reason it is also an untrustworthy theory of gravitation of TR for it “is somehow artificially relieved from the unitary field of unknown structure”. And it is known that without the unitary field as contents (PS-1) does not describe adequately NR.
If to the above presentation it is also added the known consequence from the relation between the gravitational, FG, and electric, Fe, forces, namely that both the relation from the gravitational energy WG (matter, mass – mG) and their analogous electric quantities - We and me of every material object (electron, photon, atom, …, body) included, and for the Universe as a whole, (that is a sum of these), the matter of which is electromagnetic according to the fundamental principle A.3 – PENM, the following regularities will be valid:
a) ~: ® b) ~: c) ~: ®
d) ~~ (PS-2)
By (PS-2) it is proved that (PS-1) is valid for only one 10-42–th part of the Universe.
At the end, the presentation given above confirms the trustworthy truth that GTR, and respectively TR as well, is not “a satisfactory foundation of physics”.
In respect to the cited negative statements of Einstein regarding TR, someone could make an objection, that these are “a drop in the ocean” in comparison with the positive statements regarding it which had been expressed by him and the adherents of TR, and that namely because of this those citations should be rejected as unfounded.
However, such an opinion would not be legitimate from scientific point of view, and this for at least two essential reasons.
First. In the science there exists an unconditional principle regarding the criterion for trustworthiness of the knowledge that in essence says: If for a theory there are experimental facts that confirm it, then it is considered an adequate truth. However, when it is categorically found that there is even a single trustworthy and essential experimental fact that the theory cannot confirm or explain, i. e. it is rejected by this fact, then from that time moment on it ceases to be an adequate truth – a theory.
Namely in that aspect the above-presented citations of Einstein’s take down TR from the pedestal of the trustworthy truth that TR is a general theory of the natural reality – NR (the Universe).
Second. In principle it is assumed that the author (creator) of a theory knows best its advantages and drawbacks. In this aspect, if assuming that the above-presented citations do not reflect really Einstein’s opinion about TR, then it follows automatically the conclusion that Einstein did not have a real concept about TR he had created, i. e. he did not know the essence of his own theory. In such a case there emerges the question who and whether there is such a person who will put his or her signature under the statement that Einstein when created TR did not understand what he was doing and what he had created. Naturally, no one, even someone among the ardent adherents of TR would sign such an opinion.
Namely on the basis of such considerations it is assumed here that there are in TR essential incorrectnesses because of which it is not a trustworthy theory of NR. Some additional incorrectnesses are presented in the next paragraph.
PS.3. Some incorrect basic formulations in TR
PS.3.1. General introductory formulations
Einstein underlined multifold his statement regarding when a theory would be trustworthy, writing in  (p. 266): “The first criterion is obvious, the theory should not contradict the experimental results”. However, in TR built by him, in the initial and foundation-laying formulations (statements, regularities, principles, and etc.) he in essence had nearly nowhere observed that written in  (p. 266) and cited above. Moreover, taking into consideration his critical statements concerning TR, the kind reader is begged in more detail and with more goodwill to follow the critical analyses on TR presented in this paragraph or elsewhere in order to decide himself or herself what is the truth about TR.
Before the analysis, here, it is necessary to presented new citations by Einstein that are essential conditions for the analysis.
3.I. In  (p. 414) he wrote: “… The fundamental statement of Lorentz, that every light beam travels in the emptiness with a constant speed, we shall call principle of permanence for the speed of light (for brevity – PPSL – a note of P.P.)”.
3.II. In  (p. 678) he wrote: “Another principle, on which the special theory of relativity is based (for brevity – STR – a note of P.P): according to this principle, in the emptiness the light always travels with a constant speed (irrespective of the state of motion of the source or observer)”.
3.III. In  (p. 76) he wrote: “It follows that in adding the speed of light with a speed lesser than c, the speed of light c is obtained again”.
3.IV. In  (p. 397) he wrote: “Unifying the law for the permanence of the speed of light (PPSL – a note by P.P.) in the emptiness and the principle of relativity, then a theory is obtained along a purely inductive path, that is called “Theory of relativity”, now. (TR – a note by P.P.)”.
PS.3.2. Regarding the incorrectness of PPSL
According to citation 3.I, Einstein acknowledged that not he but Lorentz was the first who had expressed PPSL, and Einstein only used it in TR.
From citations 3.I; 3.II, and 3.IV it follows that the mathematical form of PPSL with respect to an observer with mass mH<>0 that is travelling with a velocity ±vH<>0 is
a) ; ® b) ; ® c) (PS-3)
or according to , (§ - appendix I, p. 588) for IRS – K and K' is
a) x=uc.t=c.t, ® b) x- ct=0, c) x' = c.t' = uc.t' ; d) x' - c.t' =0, e) vH=0; f) mH=0 (PS-4)
where the relationships between x, x' , and t, t' , are determined by the Lorentz transformations (for brevity LT).
In the citations indicated and the written form of PPSL the following incorrectnesses are obvious:
a) From the pre-set condition , but without any experimental proofs whatsoever Einstein accepted the statement of Lorentz (see 3.I), and b) did not take into account that if from the condition , then it follows unconditionally and most categorically the conclusion that this velocity of the observer has a carrier, which is the observer himself, and that he is a material object with mass mH<>0, because of which, according to the principle of indestructibility and increatibility of matter and energy (A.3 - PCME), Einstein could not and had no right because of a fancy of Lorentz to transform into nothing both the observer’s matter and his velocity.
Because of the indicated rough incorrectness and as there is no experimental confirmation for this it follows that citations 3.I, 3.II, and 3.IV for PPSL as well as its mathematical written forms (PS-3) and (PS-4) have not any trustworthy meaning (status) of a physical regularity, i. e. PPSL is not a trustworthy truth.
Furthermore, for the same physical conditions the physicists had known the law, called Doppler effect – DE, since 1842 and experimentally confirmed for optics in 1867 (described in § B.2 – eq. B.2-6), because of which PPSL is not a trustworthy scientific fact. Moreover, both Lorentz and Einstein knew DE. Additionally, the Michelson-Morley also rejected PPSL and that was known to Lorentz and Einstein but it seems that the maxim “Even the gods keep silence before the facts” was not important to them as was not the above-mentioned citation by Einstein in § PS 3.1 , (p. 266). Probably, there was, here, an oversight from the part of Lorentz and Einstein. This PPSL is called by Einstein with different terms in various publications: a law, principle, or postulate. However, in the scientific methodology it is accepted that the postulate is an intuitive statement that becomes trustworthy (acquires a status of a law - principle) only after its experimental confirmations or those of his consequences.
As DE is experimentally confirmed and used in technologies, instead of (PS-3) or (PS-4) it follows that DE should be used in physics in the form
a) ; b) ; c) mH<>0; d) (PS-5)
At the same time it should be emphasized that so far no one, Lorentz and Einstein included, has shown an experimental confirmation of PPSL, and DE that rejects it is widely used in the practice – the engineering activities.
Namely because of this demonstrated untrustworthiness of PPSL, it is not included into TFP.
PS.3.3. On the incorrectness of Lorentz transformations – LT
Einstein in  (§ - appendix I, p. 588-592) as well as other physicists deduce LT by starting (as a corollary) from PPSL for two IRS – K and K' in the form:
a) ; b) ; c) ; d) (PS-6)
As the conclusion of (PS-6) in  is at initial formulation that PPSL, and respectively (PS-3) and (PS-4), are real regularities, from this formulation in  it follows PPSL, (PS-5), and (PS-6) can be also applied to (PS-6), i. e. to LT. Then, as x=ct and uc=c±vH=c, the following relationships are obtained from (PS-6) for some of its members
a) ; ®
b) ; c) (PS-7)
that after being substituted into (PS-6) and for LT, it is obtained PPSL
a) ; b) ; c) ; d) (PS-8)
From where it follows the conclusions:
Starting from LT, Einstein wrote in , (§ 13, p. 550): “In the equation x' =w.t' , if the expressions for x' and t' , are expressed by x and t, applying the first and fourth equations of LT (he had in mind (PS-6)a and (PS-6)d – a note by P.P.) will give the equation
that corresponds to the equation in TR for addition of velocities with the same directions”.
Namely by (PS-9) in  (§ 5, p. 21) Einstein had set v=c and w< c, (but if he had also set v=c and w< c – a note by P.P.) and it was obtained
a) : b) (PS-10)
And immediately after this equation (PS-10)a Einstein wrote: “It follows further on, that the velocity of light c cannot be changed by its addition to a velocity lesser than the velocity of light.”. In TR this is the only “proof” that PPSL is a trustworthy truth and this is done by using the incorrect LT that are a corollary from PPSL. In this sense (PS-10) is not a legitimate proof of PPSL but ŕn approach based on a vicious closed circle, in which from the untrustworthy PPSL the untrustworthy LT are deduced at v=c and w=c, and through them the untrustworthy formula (PS-9) is obtained, from which at v=c and w=c and through its solution (PS-10) the “correctness” of PPSL is also demonstrated unscientifically, i. e. by using a method having nothing in common with the scientific approach.
Undoubtedly, such a formula, but a correct one (PS-9), is deduced in § B.4, eq. (B.4-7), but it is solely obtained on the basis of experimentally confirmed scientific facts from the classical physics, without any additional experimentally unconfirmed formulations, and it is valid only at
v< c and w< c (PS-11)
Namely at this condition (PS-11), (PS-9) is confirmed, and respectively (B.4-7), irrespective that v and w can be quite close to c, but never equal to c, and always v< c and w< c.
At the end it follows the conclusion that (PS-10) does not prove PPSL, and it is and remains an untrustworthy truth – a hypothetical concept.
PS.3.5. On the question whether there is or not a space-time continuum – STC
As it is known, for two IRS-K and K' , PPSL is written in the form
a) r=c.t, b) r' =c.t' , (PS-12)
where: r and r' are the distances, and t and t' - the times determined respectively for IRS – K and K' through LT.
From (PS-12)a and b, eliminating the velocity, it is obtained
deduced by H. Minkowski and called “space–time continuum” (for brevity STC – a note by P.P.).
Because the incorrectness of PPSL has already been proved, and in fact (PS-5) – DE is valid for addition of the velocity of light with another ví<c, then instead of (PS-13) the following equation is obtained
in which the velocities and are present, and because of this TR is not a Minkowski’s STC. As a result (PS-14) cannot be equivalent to (PS-13), i. e. there lacks a Minkowski’s STC in TR, and with this TR also drops out.
PS.3.6. On the dependence of mass on the velocity in TR
This relationship is obtained in § B.3, eq. (B.3-17)a, only on the basis of the classical physics without any additional formulations, while in TR it was deduced by Lorentz on the basis of LT in 1895, and later on, in 1905 Einstein wrote it down in , (§ 10, p. 34) also as a corollary of LT. However, by taking into account (PS-7)b - , i. e. that in essence LT are an untrustworthy truth, and by applying (PS-7) to the relationship obtained for the mass with respect to the velocity, the result will be
Therefore, only due to the fact that it had not been taken into account that PPSL was valid for LT, by chance the expression for the dependence of the mass upon the velocity coincided with Kaufmann’s experiment of 1901. It is interesting why Einstein did not cite there the fact he knew that by using LT Lorentz had deduced the same formula 10 years before him.
PS.3.7. On the deduction of the expression for the kinetic energy in TR
This relationship has been obtained in § B.3 – eq. (B.3-12) only on the basis of the classical physics. But for the first time Einstein gave it in , (§ 10, p. 34), being deduced through LT, so if PPSL is also applied here, it will be respectively obtained
Therefore, it is by chance confirmed by the experiment because it has not been taken into account that LT, and respectively PPSL, are incorrect.
PS.3.8. An experiment rejecting the variation of l and t with velocity
In STR, according to , (§ 4, p. 18), on the basis of LT it is “proved that the length of the bodies at rest () is shortened at moving with a velocity in the direction of velocityto , and the time interval to at rest is increased to t as follows:
a) , b) (PS-17)
However, taking into account (PS-7) instead of (PS-16) leads to
a) , b) (PS-18)
I. e. and do not change at as according to § 3.3. LT are not a trustworthy truth, and actually in , (§ 2.2.1, p. 114) the following experiment is described.
Let an immobile observer (corresponding instruments) is located at the origin O of IRS – K, and along the direction of axis x a body AB with length lAB is traveling with velocity . The beginning and end of the body are designated correspondingly with A and B. At these there are sources of light that irradiate simultaneously (synchronously) light impulses towards O, where the signals from A and B are received immediately and independently from each other. There, modern clocks of accuracy » 10-15 s are used for measuring the differences between times and ® of their arrival. The sources at A and B radiate simultaneously light impulses at equal intervals of time T in the direction to the observer at O. As the velocities of light impulses radiated by A and B do not depend on the states of movement and are of velocity that coincides with axis X, and the length of body AB at rest () is lAB0=l0, then at every moment of time t for corresponding distances lA and lB of body to the observer at O and for the moments from corresponding times tA and tB to O, these are valid: (lA = c.tA; lB= c.tB; lAB0= c.tAB0 = Cte ®tAB = Cte), because the velocity of light radiated by A and B is constant and equal to c, then it is obtained
a) lAB= = Cte ; b) tAB = /c = Cte , (PS-19)
as it also follows from (PS-7).
Therefore, the experiment also shows that LT are not a reality, and together with this that there is no shortening of distances and increase of times at observing moving objects. V. F. Weisskop in Physics Today, 1960. Vol. 13, IX, p. (24-27) found out that at photographing from a moving sphere, it had always looked only like a sphere on the photograph and never as an ellipsoid that could follow if LT were a trustworthy truth.
As a result of the above-presented experiment that demonstrates there is no any shortening of lengths and increase in times, Lorentz transformations – LT are rejected categorically with one hundred percent of trustworthiness, and the fact (PS-7)b, that , is confirmed. And this is the necessary and sufficient condition for disproving both LT and TR as a whole.
PS.3.9. On the space–time interval – STI
In , (p. 416) Einstein wrote: “Fundamental invariant of LT is
It should be emphasized here that this dS is not a distance and has nothing in common with distance dSE in Euclidean geometry – EG, and there does not exist a correlation relationship whatsoever between dS and dSE. And as it has already been demonstrated the untrustworthiness of LT, it follows that dS (PS-20) is also an unreal quantity – an illusionary statement.
In GTR (PS-20) is written as a metrical invariant in Riemann geometry – RG. In tensor-written form it is
where : gik has the same meaning as in (PS-1).
However, because of the rejection of LT, and respectively of (PS-20), it follows that (PS-21) is also eliminated as a real physical quantity in TR, i. e. there is not either STI, or TR.
PS.3.10. Maxwell-Lorentz equations and LT
After rejecting LT as untrustworthy, here emerges the question whether the transformations of Maxwell-Lorentz equations described in , (§ 6, p. 22-24) through LT are trustworthy?
In this case it is of importance what Einstein wrote in , (p. 396), namely: “Here TR exhibits itself. It shows that PPSL should be simultaneously implemented for observers traveling in respect to each other in such a way that for the same light beam there will be the same velocity in respect all observers.” This statement also comes from LT according to (PS-6), and these (LT) indicate that for all IRS – K, K' , K”,…, Kn the ratio x/t is:
a) x/t = c: b) x’/t’ = c;… c) xn/tn = c ® d) xn = c.tn (PS-22)
I. e. LT are another written form of PPSL that rejects groundlessly DE (the Doppler effect) as it was shown in § RS.3.2. However: a) in § B.2. it was proved that DE is valid for all wave processes, and b) it is assumed in physics that DE is also valid for the light, too; DE being used for the explanation of Hubble’s law. On the basis of these irrefutable facts it follows the conclusions that: first, the above-presented citation from  and (PS-22) are not trustworthy; second, DE is also valid for the light as an electromagnetic phenomenon. And the conclusion: The transformation of Maxwell-Lorentz equations in  (§ 6) is not trustworthy and does not prove the trustworthiness of LT because DE has not been taken into account.
The above presentation rejects once again the trustworthiness of LT.
PS.4. Is Newton’s gravitation a first approximation of the gravitation of TR?
To give a trustworthy answer to this question it is necessary and sufficient that the following questions be answered with correct arguments:
a) Does it exist in TR a law for the gravitation of TR that is written completely analytically and confirmed experimentally (in integrated form) as that of Newton is?
b) By what scientifically accepted analysis is it proved that the gravitation of TR being in Riemann geometry – RG and written in tensor form – TF actually has as a first approximation the gravitation of Newton that is in Euclidean geometry – EG and is written in the form with formulae by ordinary mathematical analysis?
The answers to these questions are:
First: In TR there is no complete and accurate writing of a law for its gravitation. As the gravitation of TR is substantiated through the formulations: First, that matter has inertial and gravitational masses. However, in the present study it has been proved in § A.3.1. (p. 9) and § B.3 ® B.3.1; B.3.2 and B.3.3 (p. 15-19) that there are not two masses but only one notion of mass that is an abstract (idealization) of the notion of matter, but retains its inertial and gravitational properties; Second, that there is a principle of equivalency - PE. However, in , (p. 120), it has been proved that there is not and cannot be PE because also in an elementary (differential) volume - dV between two points at an elementary distance dr ® 0, but always dr > 0, there is not and cannot be a uniform gravitational field, even for a local PE, and as to motivate PE it is unconditionally necessary that there is a uniform gravitational field, then it follows that there is not PE, and Third, that (PS-1) is a trustworthy equation of the gravitational field. However, as it has been shown in § PS-2 Einstein himself also thought (citation 2.2 from  (p. 286) that (PS-1) “is a temporary way out … only”.
From the non-trustworthiness of the formulations indicated it follows the conclusion that there is not and cannot be gravitation of TR.
Second: On the basis of Einstein’s statements in the citations presented above: , (p. 286); , (p. 217); , (p. 603), and , (p. 678), and the arguments in the previous paragraph PS-3 that PPSL, LT, STC, STI, etc. are not a trustworthy truth, it follows categorically the conclusion that in TR of Einstein there is no correctly deduced, real, and wholly described, existing as a trustworthy experimentally confirmed (either directly, or indirectly, or as an imaginary experiment) equation for the gravitation of TR, there is no such either in Riemann geometry and in tensor-written form, or in Euclidean geometry and through mathematical analysis. There is only incorrect written form of differential equation that is given in the beginning of PS under number (PS-1), and which is interpreted in various articles but without any integration, only in a differential written form in non-motivated variants at experimentally non-proved conditions. It was stated in  that exact solutions of Einstein’s equations had been given. However, these statements for exact solutions have the following essential drawbacks that make them physically non-trustworthy as: first, they have not experimental confirmed initial principles, and second, their solutions are not also confirmed by corresponding experimental data. That is why they cannot be accepted as a trustworthy physical truth. Namely on the basis of this ground these solutions have no confirming force (value) for the trustworthiness of Einstein’s TR, and remain as wish only.
Because of this circumstance Einstein did not have a trustworthy reason to write in  (§ 21, p. 498): “D.§ 21. The theory of Newton as a first approximation (for brevity TNFA – a note by P.P.)”.
Here, it is considered another variant of writing (PS-1) that is non-trustworthy because:
However, here emerges the question after (52), and respectively (PS-1), is deduced on the basis of non-trustworthy truths as PPSL, STC, LT, STI, etc. on what ground this equation is a trustworthy truth, when in citation 3.IV in item 3.1b , (p. 397), it is written: “Unifying the law of permanence of the speed of light (PPSL – a note by P.P.)”, along the inductive path of which a theory has been obtained, that is now called “Theory of relativity (TR – a note by P.P.)”. And in  (p. 286) Einstein wrote for (PS-1): “Of course, I have never doubt even for a minute that such a formulation is a temporary way out of the situation only”.
From the presentation it follows two or three essential conclusions for TNFA.
First: After (PS-1) has been assumed non-trustworthy because of the non-trustworthinesses of the formulations, from which it has been deduced, as PPSL, STC, LT, STI, etc. and after Einstein himself considered it non-trustworthy in , (p. 286): “…that such a formulation is a temporary way out of the situation only …”, it cannot be accepted that this describes a trustworthy truth and could be used for real solutions. Naturally, after Einstein had written in , (p. 266): “The first criterion is obvious, the theory should not contradict the experimental results”. And as (PS-1) does not have either any integral solution, or experimental confirmation, and on the contrary its initial formulations are non-trustworthy, then it follows the categorical conclusion, that TR also describes a non-trustworthy truth, so the statement that TNFA of TR is not a truth. From this first conclusion it follows that also the three examples, being offered by the corresponding publications as a demonstration of the trustworthiness TR, are not a truth for TR, but are solely a confirmation of Newton’s gravitation.
Second: When there is not any experimental fact that would indicate in general at whatever point of the Universe what results TR gives for its gravitational field, it is nonsense to state that TNFA in respect to the unknown (that is nowhere at all) gravitation of TR. Where is there such a scientific approach stating that some solution is a first approximation of something for which it has not been proved at all that it exists.
Third: Naturally, the trustworthiness of Newton’s gravitation for the Sun’s system and in general for the galactic is known since long ago. For that reason, for the incorrect equation (PS-1) and through corresponding non-scientific approaches a suggestion is made incorrectly that TR is reduced to Newton’s gravitation in order to confirm through it, already as trustworthy, the supposed non-existing gravitation of TR. However, such an interpretation is not a proof for TR, but solely and trustworthy for Newton’s gravitation, as it is not proved that there really exists and is experimentally confirmed the gravitation of TR, while that of Newton has been proved.
The author of the present monograph, Prof.
Dr. Sci. Petar Rashkov PENCHEV, multiple-year lecturer at the Technical
University of Sofia (with the Department of Electrical Apparatuses), began
working on these issues as early as 1938. To the present moment he has
published a lot of publications on the problems considered together with
the following monographs:
THE SCIENCE OF PHYSICS IS A GENERALIZED ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY AND BEGINNING OF THE UNITARINESS OF SCIENCES.
Additionally, it has been demonstrated that for the theory of relativity there are neither experimental facts that confirm its initial principles, nor such that confirm its deductions. As a result it does not participate in the theoretical foundations of physics, because it is only a hypothetical statement without any experimental confirmation.
The monograph is intended for all that are looking for the indicators
of the unitariness of material and knowledge in the science of physics
that studies the Universe as one unitary whole.