Boris Dmitriev 

___________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT IS MOTION 

 

 

 

 

 

Kyiv, 2010 


ISBN 966-7613-42-9 

 

Translated from Russian by N. Kozlova, 2010 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This book was being written over more than thirty years. The 
author has made an effort to create the universal theory of motion 
meeting the requirements of natural science that continuously grow. A 
reader is supposed to have sufficient knowledge of general problems of 
modern physics to comprehensively read this theoretical study. However, 
anyone reading this book will undoubtedly feel reverence for the 
greatness and beauty of the Universe, the Lord predestined all of us to 
live in. 

 

 

 

Personal Website: Boris-Dmitriev.org 

e-mail: boris-dmitriev@ukr.net 

 

 

 

... 22.2 

 

ISBN 966-7613-42-9 � Dmitriev B., 2010 

All rights reserved 


PREFACE 

 

The title of this book reflects, in a rather unambiguous manner, 
its principal contents and destination. In the course of reading the 
proposed work a reader will get to know what is motion as the author 
interprets it, and how is it realized in the world around us. In the 
preamble I would like to mention, probably, the most unexpected 
aspect of this theoretical study. 

The creative search got along in such a way that to successfully 
solve the set problems which lead to motion understanding, the 
author had to face the problem of the Universe beginning. All the 
attempts to adapt the emerging mechanics of motion to the widely 
used 'Big Bang' modern scientific theory did not give any positive 
results. Philosophical and physical texture of this popular 
cosmological hypothesis was helpless to assign such conceptual 
contents to the fundamental categories of the Universe, such as 
'substance', 'space', 'time', which could be conducive to develop 
the comprehensive theory of motion and satisfy the most exacting 
requirements. The grade of our penetration into the secret of motion 
impressively depends on the quality of notion status of the aforesaid 
fundamental categories. According to scientific ideas, any motion 
can be realized only in the interaction between these concepts. 

After long and rather complicated reflections I came to a firm 
conviction that the most reasonable and constructive scenario of the creation of the world was proposed in remote past by Prophet Moses 
in the First Book, called Genesis. In contrast to the 'Big Bang' 
scenario the Bible version of the creation of the world proved to be 
extraordinary flexible and fruitful. It allowed to theoretically fill the 
fundamental categories of the Universe with renewed physical 
contents and real prerequisites to build universal, quantum-
relativistic theory of relativity appeared. 

The reader will be demonstrated later on, in the proper place, the 
way of how the Moses narration evaluates up to the fundamental 
physical consequences. Here I would like to draw reader's attention 
to the revealing prospect of the unity of the Holy Scripture doctrines 
with the experience of the modern natural science. It is impossible to 
overestimate this prospect, because any progress in this field has 
unique significance for the whole elucidative culture. The author 
really hopes that it is this circumstance that will be his greatest 
creative success. 

The thing is that today the Christian part of the humanity, for 
example, disposes, supposedly, of two independent concepts of 
creation and existence of the Universe. On the one hand, we have 
God-inspired books of experience generalization. It is supposed that 
any scientific model responds the requirements of human thoughts 
much more strictly compared with the Holy Writ, if we base on the 
criterion of the external justification, that is, on the compatibility 
with the observed reality. 

Traditionally, our world view is built, mainly, on the basis of one 
of the aforesaid concepts, the Holy Writ, which include rather perfect 
picture of the surrounding world functioning, free of internal 
contradictions. In addition, this picture allows us to almost 
completely satisfy the necessities of the human spirit. On the other 
hand, in the course of the long history of its evolution human 
community elaborated its proper scientific model of the Universe 
existence, based on everyday and sometimes they are in violent 
antagonism to each other. Though, in effect, science and religion 
solve the same problem. Both of them help a man to maintain 
intellectual and psychological equilibrium, living in this 'beautiful 
and violent world', as poets say. Science copes with its problems, 
basing on its starry-eyed idea of the Universe constructed with the 



account of our cognitive abilities, and the efforts of human mind 
allow us to logically comprehend it in full. Religion, in its turn, 
adheres to the respectful conviction of a man conceived and 'made' 
in such a manner as to subordinate and subject his private life to the 
Supreme Will which governs the Universe. In contrasting a man and 
the outer space, the science ranks first the individual with his 
personal pretensions and methods of self-affirmation. At the same 
time, the religion calls to entrust one's destiny, with resigned 
humility, to the hands of the Divine Providence. Strictly speaking, 
here one can see the roots of the elucidative culture split. 

We know not for how long the cleavage has taken place, and 
whether an untroubled harmony existed in the mind and souls of 
people with respect to the comprehension of the global picture of the 
Universe, and place and predestination of a man in it. However, there 
are no doubts that the modern science, deprived of immortal 
aspirations and hopes on eternity, as well as religion dogmatics 
groundlessness, is not capable to separately lead the mankind to the 
comprehensive truth that uniquely can bring us total satisfaction. 

Indeed, uncompromising confrontation between science and 
religion, whose witness and active participants during a long period 
of time is a mankind, promoted, in a certain manner, in the course of 
progress, the formation of religious, social and natural-science ideas. 
At the same time, we must not ignore or reject the perniciousness of 
non-availability of a unique system of fundamental knowledge about 
life and sense of the Universe existence, in human community. 
Tragic discord between spirit and mind which relentlessly pursuits 
any thinking person and humanity as a whole, is a direct 
consequence of lack of the higher harmony in our comprehension of 
the Universe. The aspiration of such a harmony is natural and 
ineradicable as a life itself. 

A great latent danger exists in the fact that we, in reality, do not 
imagine what grade of conflict a person is able to accept this 
confrontation to. Natural sciences continuously develop. Religious 
conviction also acquires deeper forms. The contradictions between 
them fatefully and persistently rend souls and hearts of men. The 
possibility for a man to be cracked by the force of this confrontation 
becomes more threatening with every passing day. In this anxious 



situation, the necessity of searching ways for unity of the Holy 
Scriptures doctrines and the experience of modern natural science 
becomes extremely actual. 

The source of hope and optimism in the issue of our 
comprehension of the Universe harmonization is the obvious non-
naturalness of the situation when the two branches of fundamental 
culture, which serve as a sign of civilization evolution, have no 
common points of intersection in our understanding. Such a situation 
contradicts the fundamental principle of knowing the real world, 
which results from the condition of global unity of the universe and, 
respectively, global generality of laws which regulate its existence. 
The world is single and indivisible, and consequently, contradictions 
which appear in connection with satisfaction of necessities of human 
spirit and mind, have, mainly, subjective origin. Their reasons are in 
us, better to say, in the system of our knowledge of the Universe. 


CREATION OF THE WORLD 

Proposing two independent concepts of the Universe creation and 
functioning, we bear in mind that they possess, in principle, 
absolutely equal rights (if we analyze them basing on the wide 
gnosiological standpoint). Positionally, these two visions are seen 
'fifty-fifty', as we use to say. The science, using reasonable 
methods, cannot find incontrovertible arguments prohibiting 
existence of the Divine Providence in the Universe. Religion, in its 
turn, is not able to present categorical evidences of its dogmatic 
pillars objectivity. Meanwhile, the negation of God on the only 
reason that nobody has ever seen Him, is untenable just like the 
doubt in existence of the stationary magnetic field at the surface of 
our planet. Nobody has seen this field and one can scarcely be 
honoured with such a fate. 

As a rule, adherents of the scientific picture of the world make 
references to experimental evidences in similar situations. For 
instance, they believe that readings of compass needle which is 
always oriented towards the North pole, can serve as objective 
argument confirming existence of the stationary magnetic field at the 
surface of the Earth. In such a case a person with religious conviction 
has the right to make reference to the sacred image of the Most Holy 
Mother of God. The image of the Mother of God, in its turn, 
indicates the authenticity and confirms trustworthiness of the 
historical origin of the evangelic text. 



Objections may arise, which state that the image on an icon is a 
matter of human fantasy, mind and hands. However, in such a case 
one must think that magnetic compass is also a matter of human 
creative fantasy, mind and hands. And research complex in 
Serpukhov where the secrets of the micro-world are being studied, is 
a matter of human mind and hands to the same degree as Troitse-
Sergiyeva Lavra � centre of ecclesiastic mysteries and trust in 
Christian decease of our life. We must clearly realize that the 
experience of a Christian, in its essence and according to its results, 
does not differ from the intrinsic position and experience of a 
scientist. We do not have any objective evaluation criterion which 
could allow us to compare merits and adequacy of church hermit 
persuasions with a pride of scientific conviction of a Nobel Laureate 
in Physics. 

Well, and what is this scientific experiment? All the history of 
natural science progress proves the impossibility to get solid 
axiomatic fundamental for theoretical science basing on experiments. 
Our ideas about physical reality are always incomplete, hence, 
imperfect. We are permanently able to change these ideas, change 
axiomatic fundamental of physics to interpret recently discovered 
facts in the most natural and consistent manner. In the first turn, it 
happens because the science does not dispose of any inductive 
method leading directly to the fundamental concepts which could 
help us to comprehend and speculatively reproduce the real picture 
of the world. Our thinking is of a deductive nature, it develops on the 
bases of hypothetic ideas and axioms. As a result, we are not given to 
know whether the degree of their reliability and trustfulness is 
sufficient to reflect real, true state of affairs. 

In contrast to science, the Holy Scripture is a system of 
knowledge which is apprehended as once ascertained given, which is 
not subject to and does not need any adjustment and improvement. In 
this sense, the Holy Scripture, as compared with science, looks like 
more mature and self-sufficient system of the world view. The style 
of application and quality of theological knowledge are marked with 
particular transcendent specifics. Science is dedicated to reasoning 
nature of material objects, while religion, mainly, helps a man to 
maintain psychological equilibrium between finiteness of his 



terrestrial life and infinity of the Universe. That's why, we can say, 
nobody is going to groundlessly raise electromagnetic field to the 
level of the Holy Spirit. However, nobody has the right to deny the 
possibility to bring axiomatic fundamentals of a science and its 
logical structures into accord with the Holy Scripture doctrine. 

Probably, among all the subject matters of the Universe existence, 
the interpretation of the most mysterious and grand act known as 
'creation of the world' reveals an irreconcilable stand of science and 
religion. The adequate theoretical scenario of the Universe birth has a 
very important cognitive importance. Pursuant to its instructions the 
fundamental conceptual arsenal, which characterizes principal 
categories of the Universe, namely, 'substance', 'space', and 'time', 
is laid. We associate objective perception of the outer space with 
registration of these comprehensive categories. And it is always 
desirable that the origin of the proposed fund of fundamental 
categories of the Universe bases on the least possible number of 
logically independent principles, embracing, however, as wide range 
of natural phenomena as possible. 

Therefore, it is safe to assert that the deep understanding of how 
the events in the Universe at the early stages of its existence evaluate, 
is of exclusive importance for the successful formation of global 
conception of the Universe existence. If the initial information we get 
about the Universe existence is wrong, then the fundamental 
conceptual arsenal becomes doubtful, and all the further huge logical 
constructions which seem to reflect the true physical picture of the 
universe, only aggravate the initial inferiority of our comprehension 
of the Universe. It is not occasional that the First Book, called 
Genesis, by Moses, which is the beginning of the Holy Scripture, 
starts with the narration of creative and foundational acts of the 
Divine Universe. 

Let us think of the first day of the creation of the world according 
to Moses: 

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 

And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face 
of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 

And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. 



And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light 
from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness 
He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one 
day.' 

In this unpretentious manner and with perplexing sincerity the 
Holy Scripture brings us into the mystery of the Universe creation. 

Voluminous bibliography related to the Bible version of the 
Universe creation, including critical one, is known. Theology states 
that the Hebrew word 'bara' meaning 'to create from nothing', in 
contrast to the other word, 'assa', which means creation from any 
material substance, is used in the expression 'created'. Creation of 
the world from nothing assumes the action of the Divine Providence, 
which does not need any additional improvised means. This is the 
main point of God's sovereign power and His all-essence. 

It is difficult to find in the Books of the Bible more tasty morsel 
than the creation of the world by Moses, which serves for those who, 
at any time and being adepts of any philosophical school, try to 
overwhelm theological doctrines 'by stock order'. A critical mind 
finds the most vulnerable side of the Moses narration in these acts of 
creation of 'everything from nothing'. A weak point of the Bible 
version results from the unavailability of a clear motivation of 
definitions: What is everything? And what is nothing? 
Convincingness of the Old Testament scenario of the creation of the 
world depends exclusively on our ability to find answers to these 
sacramental questions. To reconcile scientific idea with the religious 
standpoint concerning the creation of the world the theology needs to 
know to illustrate physical mechanism of substance beginning from 
nothing � according the Hebrew word 'bara' interpretation. 

As we know, the modern natural science disposes its own scenario 
of the creation of the world, which is independent of the Holy 
Scripture. This scenario, in the final analysis, comes to the effect of 
the Big Bang. The science invites us to come back to the past, to the 
events which happened billion years ago, and consider the situation 
when all the matter of the Universe was concentrated in a limited 
zone of space. Once a tremendous explosion of this matter occurred, 
and the matter scattered in the empty Universe in different directions 
like in a globe which is blowing uniformly. All the cosmic 



conglomerates � galactic masses, planets, and interstellar dust 
appeared as a result of such a universal expansion. In short, we mean 
absolutely everything, which we characterize as material objects. 
According to recent cosmological evaluations, the first milliseconds 
of the existence of the Universe corresponded to the appearance of 
elementary particles, later on, in several seconds, the formation of 
atomic structures took place. Hence, any elementary particle of the 
matter may be considered as spectator and eyewitness of those 
remote exotic events. Easily observed red shift of spectral lines of 
light signal emitted by distant galaxies confirms the truth of the Big 
Bang theory. In brief, this is the scientific version of the Universe 
appearance. 

The scientific scenario of the creation of the world also abounds in 
sacramental questions. A scientific thought, for example, is 
hampered by incomprehensibility of substance appearance and 
existence before the moment of the universe explosion. It is 
absolutely unclear, what has happened later, after the Big Bang. 
Where did, in fact, once exploded substance appear from? Moreover, 
many questions are associated with very complicated and diverse 
problems which emerge in the connection with this explosion if 
moving towards the commencement (when time t = 0). 

As it often happens in our activity, a peculiar vogue takes place. It 
was time when the science considered convenient to present before-
the-explosion substance as a global cosmic egg. It is difficult to 
deliver from a sound wish to look at that amusing bird that managed 
to lay such an egg. At present, the hypothesis of the Universe 
substance originating from the quantum jump as from nothing, 
strengthens its positions. In fact, it is approaching to the Bible 
version of the creation of the world. Sometimes one can observe 
attempts to get round cosmological difficulties by developing the 
pulsing model of the Universe on the basis of the repeating principle 
that underlies the famous Russian children's song 'about the priest 
and his beloved dog'. But such a manoeuvre by no means touches 
upon the crucial question of the universe fate at early stages; it only 
stimulates its solution. Therewith, the closed oscillating model of the 
Universe faces serious difficulties because of the infinite growth of 
entropy, which is inevitably associated with such a closed physical 



system. In general, the situation with the scientific scenario of the 
creation of the world becomes dead-ended and dramatic, as it is 
found after Moses' words 'Let there be light'. The reason is that the 
number of unsolvable questions following the scientific version of 
the creation of the world, obviously, prevails over quality and 
quantity of answers to them. 

To accept scientific scenario of the creation of the world, the 
theology formulates a prerequisite: scientists must answer a simple 
question � who or what is an author of all those complicated 
processes and manipulations which have taken place and are 
continually observed in the Universe? None normal person with 
his/her incomprehensibility of the own life, can accept the idea of 
his/her appearance in this world as a result of any thoughtless 
circumstances. Can one indifferently accept any thoughtless model of 
scientific and theoretical schemes applied to the scale of all the 
Universe existence? A tendency to search the secret of the creation of 
the world basing on any simplified, initial plasma state of the 
Universe, or anything else, looks too doubtful. 

Moreover, why shall we only simplify the issues? Why is it this 
area of search that is chosen? Who has decided that one must 
advance towards the alphas of the Universe existence exclusively 
through the primitivism, that is, by resolving it into the simplest 
components? What can one say about a man, resolving him into 
elementary particles the substance consists of? Following this way 
we shall simply destruct the object of study itself. It goes without 
saying that a person, eventually, consists of a very large number of 
micro-structural combinations, but they do not determine the 
phenomenology of any individual being. These micro-particles, any 
concrete person consists of, have always existed on the Earth, they 
have existed before the appearance of this person in the Christendom, 
and they will remain in full after the person dies. Therefore, 
elementary particles of any substance are not related to the 
phenomenon of human nature. Even if one day we succeed to 
formulate the comprehensive theory of physics of the micro-world, 
things will not budge an inch to understand the supreme sense and 
predestination of the human life. 



Is it not the same that happens when we try to perceive the great 
mystery of the creation of the Universe by reducing this act to the 
appearance of primitive material formations, to the physics of the 
micro-world? In this connection it would be useful to thing, whether 
it is possible for the Universe not to exist, isn't it a vain pastime � to 
arrange a birthday for the Universe? Isn't it more reasonable and 
reliable matter to dedicate our attention to some higher ideas and 
everlasting substances which embody really creative principles? We 
mean those ideas which are capable to give internal harmony and 
supreme reasonability to our conception of the Universe life. In any 
case, we must recognize that while the science looks for the secret of 
the creation of the world by simplifying the Universe, the religion 
turns to the higher creative forces, that does it honour. 

Naturally, mutual pretensions and requirements brought by 
science and religion, must not lead to the point of absurdity. Because, 
upon atheist's barbaric request to show him the bedchamber of the 
Lord of Sabaoth, a Christian can always ask an atheist to demonstrate 
stool's ability to sing 'Faust', in the light of evolution logics of 
dialectic materialism. However, we see that any confrontation 
between science and religion, in particular, in the sphere of the 
creation of the world, is rather uncompromising and double-edged. 

It is already mentioned that the problem of the Universe 
appearance is characterized with extraordinary heuristic features, 
because as the result, the principal categories of the Universe, 
namely, 'substance', 'space', and 'time', get their physical meaning. 
Logical series of the inverse sequence allows us to believe that the 
depth of our penetration into the great mystery of the creation of the 
world substantially depends on the grade of our attempts to 
adequately attribute the principal categories of the Universe. 
Moreover, the quality of all the collection of physical regulations 
governing the life of the Universe is determined, in fact, by the 
possibility to adequately attribute the categories of 'substance', 
'space', and 'time'. 

Intuitively, we imagine that space-time properties of the Universe 
framework, and the properties of any substance which is its material 
filling, must be interdependent and closely related to each other. In 
particular, it means that space and time, which possess their given 



properties, may include a filling of a definite character. And vice-
versa, given properties of any substance do not admit any 
arbitrariness in the choice of space-time framework. There is no 
doubt that certain relationship between the principal categories of the 
Universe exists, but it is not an easy task to disclose its character. To 
solve this problem, we must make a small historical review, which 
allows us to track the process of scientific view formation for the 
categories of 'substance', 'space', and 'time'. 

When fundamental problems become an object of theoretical 
studies, the factor of finding a correct way to formulate a question 
related to the object of interest, acquires special importance. The 
ability to correctly put questions to the nature is highly appreciated in 
the science, and this requirement becomes even stricter for major 
tasks. The more crucial the status of the object of interest and wider 
the range of its application, the more diverse the scope of subjects 
included into the research process. Therefore, we need to know to 
select the most essential and critically important issues of this 
diversity. It is impossible to find any sphere in physics which, in one 
or another way, does not relate to the problem of attribution of the 
principal categories of the Universe. Any physical subject has the 
right to pretend to an outstanding part in the issue of adequate 
attribution of substance, space, and time. Prior to beginning the work 
with these categories, we must determine formal platform which 
could adequately confine such an infinite diversity of possible 
variation of approaches to the given subject matter. 

If the assumption that any science develops towards the increasing 
simplicity of its logical fundamentals is true, we can, in principal, 
choose a formal platform consisting of four theoretically acceptable 
statements, and in the framework of these statements a research 
thought is capable to analyze the categories of 'space' and 
'substance' from the standpoint of their possible material attribution. 
In this context, we bear in mind those four theoretically acceptable 
combinations when substance and space may be alternately 
considered as matter or another physical substance. 

Let us write in compact form these four theoretically acceptable 
statements in the following order: 



Firstly, we can assume that the notion of substance, even if it is an 
elementary particle, is matter. And space isn't a matter, in other 
words, it is void. 

Secondly, we can accept space as matter, and elementary particles 
of substance being holes in void. 

Thirdly, we can define space and the simplest elements of 
substance in it, as two absolutely different and independent kinds of 
matter; 

And finally, we have the possibility to declare space and 
substance in it as the derivatives of the unique material substratum, 
as the derivatives of matter, which can take different qualitative and 
distinctive forms depending on the peculiarities of its actual physical 
conditions. 

The idea of four formally acceptable statements noticeably 
restricts the sector of search for an adequate theoretical equivalent 
for the principal categories of the Universe. These statements don't 
allow us to lead the research thought away, towards abstract and 
farfetched constructions, which do not correlate with our speculative 
imagination. Naturally, in reality, the character of interrelations 
between space and substance is much more complicated than one can 
deduce basing on suggested basic wordings. However, in principle, 
any other variants are the work of the devil, one can say. In the 
course of consistent analysis our logical constructions, even being 
manipulated in any manner, inevitable go back to the crucial question 
of what is 'space' and what is 'substance' in their primordial 
physical sense. Is it matter or void? 

Democritus, for instance, while creating his philosophy, carefully 
comparing and generalizing existing everyday experience, came to a 
conclusion that only two original categories, or arches � atoms and 
void � function in nature. Atoms are indivisible particles of matter, 
they are eternal and move continuously, and combinations of atoms 
of different shapes and dimensions form various bodies. Void is 
interpreted as space. Being applied to four formally acceptable 
statements for possible attribution of the principal categories of the 
Universe, Democritus's philosophy obviously correlates with the 
first suggested wording. It assumes that the category of 'substance' 
is matter, and category of 'space' is void. Nevertheless, the mirror 



image or the image with opposite sign, of Democritus's division of 
the world into two original categories, is fixed in the second principal 
statement. According to this statement, we can consider space as 
matter, and elementary particles of substance � as holes in void. 

During many centuries Democritus's philosophy firmly 
dominated in natural sciences, it determined the strategy of evolution 
of our attitude to reality. The principal merit of this scientific system 
consists in the fact that, being based on rough everyday experience, 
on information available in the course of our direct observations; it 
allowed the scientist to operate concepts, which could easily be 
introduced into the imaginary speculative visualization. The division 
of the world into void and matter gave an ideal possibility to 
figuratively interpret any form of motion and explain any process 
taking place in the Universe. It is very important that Euclidean 
geometry and Democritus's empty space symmetrically superpose; 
according to Euclid the shortest distance between two points is a 
straight line. That's why the scientists' concept of free motion was 
compatible with geodesic lines of Euclidean geometry and was 
interpreted as uniform straight-line motion. Democritus's philosophy 
got its perfect scientific representation in the Newtonian classical 
mechanics. 

There are three basic conceptual categories in this mechanics: 
absolutely empty space, absolutely uniform time and massive 
material objects of substance, which, by the way, in Newtonian 
mathematical apparatus are considered as mass points. Massive 
bodies, according to Newton, may interact with each other, coming 
into direct contact. In case of gravitational attraction, the forces of 
instant remote action intervene. During long period of time it seemed 
that such a universal conceptual arsenal was absolutely sufficient to 
describe any natural phenomenon. However, mysterious forces of 
gravitational long-range interaction caused certain inconvenience, 
but, in general, the theoretical foundation of science seemed rather 
convincing and problem-free. Many thought that another small effort 
was needed to make the nature to open the last unread pages. 

When the science just started to research electromagnetic 
processes, the position of the investigators radically changed. The 
scientists immersed in the sphere of phenomena which were 



hopelessly closed for direct observations, and above all, they 
couldn't correlate with usual pictorial view of world division into 
two arches. All the attempts to choose an adequate physical image 
for registered electromagnetic processes within the framework of 
Democritus's philosophy, did not give expected results. Electric and 
magnetic forces did not find in our imagination any adequate 
physical equivalent, either as void or substance. 

Soon it was clarified that the all-powerful Newtonian mechanics 
fails in describing recently discovered objective realities. At first, 
certain efforts were done to imagine electric charges as material 
masses of special form with certain forces existing between them, 
which are similar to gravitational forces. But this special kind of 
matter didn't manifest its principal and fundamental property, 
namely, inertia. And the forces acting between the charges and 
weighty matter remained unknown. In addition, polar character of 
electric charges wasn't compatible with the classic framework of 
Newton's mechanics. Unexpectedly, the scientists found themselves 
in the state of a blindfold pedestrian pushed out to the driveway. 
Nobody could properly explain how the electromagnetic interactions 
were realized and what physical processes were hidden behind these 
phenomena. Nobody knew whether the newly discovered interaction 
was a manifestation of certain properties of the space, or it was the 
result of action of any kind of substance; if so, than what should be 
called 'space' and 'substance'? 

It is considered that the science succeeded in finding solution in 
such a difficult situation owing to the theory of electromagnetic field 
elaborated by Faraday and Maxwell. An innovation of Maxwell's 
theory consisted in the fact that the interaction between test bodies 
caused by electric and magnetic charges resulted from the processes 
which propagated in space at finite speed; this interaction wasn't 
caused by mysterious forces of instant reaction as it was assumed by 
the Newtonian mechanics. However, the behaviour and typical 
features of these objectively registered interactions correlated with 
none of already known fundamental categories. Then a decision to 
introduce a new, the fourth basic conceptual category was taken; this 
category was called a 'field' and added to previously known three 
categories: 'substance', 'space', and 'time'. Thus, the field took a 



firm position in the theoretical schemes associated with 
electromagnetic processes, together with mass points, representing 
substance mass in Newton's mechanics. 

We must say that from the philosophical standpoint, the idea of 
electromagnetic field propagation in the empty space realized in 
Maxwell's theory was none other than transposition of the well-
known Kant's definition number one from his 'Metaphysical 
Foundations of Natural Science'. Immanuel Kant affirmed that 
'Matter is anything moving in space. That space which is unsteady 
itself is called material or relative space, and that space where, finally, 
any motion might be imagined (that's why such a space is 
immovable in any sense), is called pure or absolute space.' Further, 
in his annotations to the definition, Kant developed this idea, 
affirming that the absolute space was not an object because one 
couldn't perceive it as an object of a direct experiment. It is anything 
which might be conceived out of limits of a given or really observed 
space. Space, which is really perceived on the basis of the 
experiment, must be material; this idea admits existence of another, 
wider space, and the abovementioned space can be realized in it. 

Electromagnetic theory, in full compliance with Kant's 
philosophy, interpreted electric and magnetic fields as a special kind 
of relative material space, which was 'placed' into a wider and 
absolutely empty space. One cannot deny that mathematical form of 
Maxwell's equations doesn't contemplate existence of any new 
conceptual substance other than reflection of space and time. 
Probably, authors of electromagnetic theory would better introduce 
the wording of a 'relative electromagnetic space', instead of a newly 
introduced concept of a 'field', which considerably complicated our 
ideas of physical status of principal categories of the Universe. 
Though, a rather mysterious definition of an unknown essence was 
launched into the scientific language. Till nowadays nobody can 
accessibly explain what is it, this electromagnetic field. How does it 
look and what is the difference between field and space or substance? 
Of course, here we don't take into account various hypothetic 
inventions, which, as usual, imply or insinuate anything, but are built 
on such doubtful assumptions and suppositions that it becomes 



impossible to consider them as prerequisites to declare a new 
fundamental category. 

It is believed that there are two circumstances which played a 
principal part in the decision to turn to the concept of the 'field'. 
Without any doubt, it is a special difficulty resulted from the obvious 
selectivity of electromagnetic forces. Not all the bodies experience 
their impact, hence, it is inconvenient to directly unite 
electromagnetic processes with the concept of 'space'. But it is even 
more important that the application of a new conceptual category 
would exempt investigators from the necessity to attribute recently 
discovered physical reality within tough frameworks of Democritus's 
world division into the arches. It is always rather easy to think up a 
new conceptual definition (which, in fact, neither expresses nor 
explains anything) for an unperceived phenomenon than bring it into 
accord with a strictly limited circle of logically independent arches. 
We mean the arches which are similar to those briefly formulated in 
the aforesaid four principal statements for material attribution of 
fundamental categories of the Universe. In any case, in the case of 
the electromagnetic theory the science followed the way of the least 
resistance, and as it usually happens, it wasn't the most worthwhile 
way. 

A very big shortcoming of the new theory consisted in the fact 
that it even didn't make any attempt to propose any efficient 
interpretation for physical nature of the electromagnetic field origin. 
Maxwell's differential equations only related space and time 
derivatives of the parameters of electric and magnetic fields, as to 
electric charges � they were considered as regions with electric field 
divergence other than zero. In fact, this theory rather gave a rational 
mathematical form to the physical processes related to 
electromagnetic interactions, than described them. 

A crucial turn in the history of science development was caused 
by the appearance of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. It was that 
time when the scientists soundly rejected the idea of searching a 
specific physical image reflecting objective reality, and became 
satisfied with its mathematical space-time analogue. Lack of visual 
speculative image for this recently discovered and undoubtedly 
objective physical reality initiated the beginning of a very perfidious 



conceptual crisis in the matter of attribution of principal categories of 
the Universe. This crisis, as we shall see further, didn't loose its 
actuality till nowadays. The reason is that the crisis, in fact, 
penetrated into all the spheres of modern physics and the concept of 
'objective reality' itself became a subject of very serious 
discrepancies. 

The thing is that mathematical language, per se, doesn't imply any 
stating of semantic, conceptual definitions. It goes without saying 
that mathematical analysis is capable of projecting internal logics of 
physical phenomena onto it, and provides significant advancement 
on the way of truth comprehension. Our skill to give quantitative 
assessment to physical processes substantially enriches researcher's 
cognition, but never any mathematical frameworks could substitute 
conceptual fundamentals of any science. In the end, the objective of 
any cognition process consists rather in understanding of 'what?' 
and 'why?' than in answering the question 'how many?' 

Summarizing, we can say that a new fundamental conceptual 
category, 'field', became current in science due to Faraday and 
Maxwell electromagnetic theory. One of the direct consequences of 
this innovation consisted in the inevitable growth of conceptual crisis 
which affected cognitive fundamental of natural sciences. The thing 
is that the new conceptual category was declared without prior 
arrangement or any acceptable theoretical basis. As a result, 
sacramental question was accentuated and remained open: indeed, 
what is 'space', and what is 'substance', and what is 'field' in their 
original physical meaning? How do these fundamental physical 
categories differ, coexist and interact, and which of them is void and 
what is matter? As to matter � how many kinds of matter exist? What 
is its structure? How is it related to energy? And what is inertia? And 
many other questions appear. 

Any reconstruction of electromagnetic theory creation cannot be 
complete if it ignores an outstanding contribution of Dutch scientist 
Hendrik Lorentz. In reality, this scientist paved the way for 
Einstein's electrodynamic theory of moving bodies which later 
became known as 'Special Theory of Relativity'. That's not the only 
point that all principal relativistic effects of special theory of 
relativity result from Lorentz's transformations. Lorentz's principal 



merit consists in getting system of equations which relates space and 
time coordinates of the same event in two different inertial frames of 
reference. Moreover, their solutions were written as transformations, 
the equations of electrodynamics are invariant relative to. There 
remained one thing to do for Einstein � to expand the idea of 
electromagnetic processes invariance with respect to Lorentz's 
transformations and apply it to all physical processes, without any 
exception. The author of the relativistic theory brilliantly did it on the 
basis of a subtle analysis of the well known identity of 
electromagnetic and optical phenomena. 

We must say that at the moment of special theory of relativity 
creation the situation with attribution of fundamental categories 
dramatically aggravated due to negative result received in the course 
of experiments aimed at etheric wind discovery. The scientific world 
anticipated the results of those experiments. The results seemed to 
put an end to a jumble with respect to definition of the physical status 
of the category of 'space'. However, the results of the experiments 
did not contribute to solution of the problem of reliable attribution of 
this category, in contrast, they utterly complicated the matter. The 
principal result of these experiments was the contradiction between 
discovered physical properties of circumterrestrial space and general 
principle of classical mechanics concerning addition of velocities. 
This rule which allows us to pass from one inertial frame of 
reference to another, evidently contradicted the principle of constant 
speed of light propagation in vacuum. 

The results of experiments on etheric wind registration revealed a 
pressing need to review our attitude to the category of 'space' and 
directly motivated the development of relativistic theory of motion. 
To a certain extent one can state that Albert Einstein, using his theory 
of relativity, hoped to arrange a reliable attribution of the category of 
'space' and eliminate accumulated differences and contradictions, 
which ruin the theoretical fundamental of mechanics of motion. 
However, it may be sound ironic, but the scientist made attempts to 
review the conceptual status of the category of 'space' through a 
physical concept, whose conceptual and mathematical apparatus was 
fully adopted from electromagnetic theory, which initiated the 



conceptual crisis concerning the attribution of fundamental 
categories of the Universe. 

The succession of the theory of relativity couldn't be limited by its 
mathematical essence. Lack of conceptual arsenal of electromagnetic 
theory, together with equations, inevitably moved to it. Both the 
theory of motion proposed by Einstein and electromagnetic theory 
didn't suggest any ideas with respect to real physical meaning of its 
conceptual basis. In other words, the theory of relativity didn't 
propose any conceptual equivalents to reflect actual physical 
properties of substance, space, and time. The utmost thing Einstein 
succeeded to do, was the statement of light postulates, which reflect 
objective physical properties of a real space-time. But the nature and 
origin of these postulates were out of reach for relativistic theory 
cognition, and light postulates became one of its most 
incomprehensible aspects. 

Nevertheless, the creative power of Einstein's intelligence played 
a very important part in that extremely contradictive situation. 
Perhaps, the outstanding imagination of the author of the relativistic 
theory was revealed, at the most, in acknowledgement of objective 
ambiguity when determining simultaneity of two events which occur 
in different points of the space. After a deep analysis of the 
procedure of observations and measurements of registered physical 
processes, Einstein rejected the Newtonian view of space and time 
absoluteness. The scientist proved their objective relativity basing on 
witty thought experiments. Once the time loses the quality of 
absolute, uniformly flowing substance, then our attitude to the world 
around us radically changes. Hence, it became obvious that the 
separate existence of space and time in motion description 
contradicts experimental logics, thus, it doesn't possess any 
theoretical grounds. 

The theory of relativity convincingly demonstrated that the unique 
possible interpretation of space-time relations is the four-dimensional 
interpretation; moreover, it allows to effectively comment negative 
results of experiments on etheric wind registration. The introduction 
of another conceptual category, known as 'four-dimensional space-
time', into the scientific language is the result of Einstein's creative 



efforts. Its existence allowed the scientists to exclude the problem of 
separate attribution of 'space' and 'time' categories from the agenda. 

Einstein didn't put a lot of work to compile a needed 
mathematical expression to unite space and time into the unique 
texture. The science had already known the equation proposed by 
German Minkovskiy, which offered solution of the problem. 
However, the task to extrapolate this mathematical structure to valid 
conceptual fundamental was difficult. The thing is that the physical 
properties of the minimum interval of space and time are quite 
different. Their matching needs any specific, unknown theoretical 
calculation. It isn't random that the four-dimensional interpretation 
of space-time relations is one of insuperable (for our speculative 
perception) aspects of the relativistic theory. Of course, the 
relativistic theory, as any other theoretical generalization, has its 
cognitive limit. Behind this limit questions appear, whose reasonable 
solution and interpretation is impossible in the framework of this 
theory. Later on, we shall analyze in details certain problems related 
to motion, which are not solved in the framework of the relativistic 
theory. Now we shall pay attention to the conceptual insufficiency of 
its space-time arguments only. 

It's curious, but Einstein himself was extremely careful while 
gleaning wordings and definitions. In case of any doubtful, 
ambiguous situation he made the best use of his skill to shift the 
physical problem to mathematical grounds, but steadily lead his ideas 
to outlined target. The methodological credo of the theory of 
relativity is compactly formulated in the introduction to the famous 
Einstein paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. In 
particular, it is written there that 'The theory to be developed is 
based � like all electrodynamics � on the kinematics of the rigid body, 
since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the 
relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, 
and electromagnetic processes.' In this literally reprinted scientist's 
declaration one can easily notice intentional tendency to accurately 
avoid the direct use of the expression 'space'. One would think, how 
can we argue about the kinematics of the rigid body without regard 
for the category of 'space'? Nevertheless, the author of the 



relativistic theory prefers to prudently get round this perfidious 
definition. 

Einstein in his guideline declaration substitutes the wording 
'systems of co-ordinates' for the concept of 'space'. As a result a 
subtle maneuver is made, ant it allows to transfer a purely physical 
category to the mathematical sphere. Doing so, the necessity of its 
physical attribution automatically disappears. Beyond any doubt, this 
effective research method � to describe physical realities using 
mathematical tools � serves as a central axle, the whole theory of 
relativity is mounted on. However, it doesn't mean that we must be 
led implicitly by the relativistic theory against common sense, which 
doesn't allow any total substitution of physical reality by 
mathematical constructions owing to the jeopardy of losing any 
control over the knowledge itself. Moreover, the method of 
transformation of purely physical problems into the sphere of 
abstract mathematical solutions adopted from Maxwell's 
electromagnetic theory, indicates the inability of a research thought 
to present adequate conceptual equivalents for the observed reality. 

The thing is that in the objective world the motion is realized in 
the framework of interaction between space, time, and substance, 
without involvement of any mathematical means. For this reason the 
choice of mathematical apparatus and procedure of its application are 
always coupled with certain arbitrariness. The exhaustive theory of 
material objects displacement relative to each other must reflex the 
objective reality and describe, in the first place, the qualitative aspect 
of motion as a result of interaction between two fundamental 
categories of the Universe. And then the quantitative assessment of 
the results of such a motion must be done using mathematical tools. 
In this sense, the relativistic theory isn't unstained. It tries to 
persistently get round the qualitative aspect of motion and reduce our 
knowledge about it to quantitative assessment using mathematical 
analogue related to a physical law. 

Without any doubt, Einstein was the first to know weak aspects of 
his relativistic theory. For this reason he dedicated many years of his 
creative biography to the problem of unified field theory 
development. The idea is that this theory must reduce fundamental 
categories of the Universe to the unified field substance and find 



such mathematical expressions for it, which could describe any 
actual type of physical interactions. And at the same time, it is 
needed to stop with the deep conceptual crisis affecting the natural 
sciences. 

It is already mentioned that physical properties of space-time 
framework and its material filling are closely interconnected and 
don't tolerate any arbitrariness in their selection. That's why, 
logically, the burst conceptual crisis concerning issues of the world 
space-time framework description, inevitably shifted onto its 
material filling. That is, onto our capacity to adequately attribute 
material objects expressing the category of 'substance'. Firstly, it 
was discovered that elementary components of a substance weren't 
simple material particles, but they may and must be considered as 
wave formations. Secondly, it was found that we were not able to 
give unambiguous mathematical definitions for those things that 
exist and occur with substance in space and time, in contrast to 
classical mechanics. Instead of it, the quantum physics offered us the 
probability partition for possible changes and states depending on 
time. 

Therefore, our penetration into more complicated realities of the 
world around us resulted in the fact that the actual state of the science 
became characterised by the presence of two independent theoretical 
systems � the theory of relativity and quantum theory. It is 
significant that each of these two scientific generalizations, 
separately, describes certain groups of phenomena quite satisfactorily. 
However, the applicability of any of them is rather problematic 
beyond this bounded area. It seems that both concepts include 
components of the aspired comprehensive theory, and the only thing 
we must do is to find logically correct steps leading to unify the 
relativistic theory and quantum physics. Without any doubt, the 
relativistic theory must maintain its actuality, being the science 
which upholds the description of natural laws by space-time relations 
(to say the truth, we don't have any alternative). Apparently, the 
relativistic theory must do it without use of any differential equation 
having regular solution, but establishing quantum space-time 
characteristics for observed physical processes. At least, we may 
hope that fulfilment of this condition becomes a logical connective 



leading to a wanted synthesis of the theory of relativity and quantum 
regularities. 

Neither the future successes of the theoretical physics are based 
on adaptability of the relativistic theory to quantum regularities, nor 
does the quantum physics adapt logics of Einstein's space-time 
relations. The attempt to get quantum regularities as the relativistic 
theory corollary may be an example of this statement. Numerous 
elaborations of more complicated space-time geometries with the 
hope to expand them over a wider sphere of natural phenomena were 
made. But the attempt to construct a complete system of opinions 
failed, and this fact proved usefulness of such efforts. 

To naturally combine these two fundamental theoretical 
generalizations, it would be more useful to step back to the initial 
line and try to formulate the optimal conceptual basis in the very 
sources of our knowledge. We need to fill our ideas about 'space', 
'time', 'substance', and 'field' with the renewed conceptual 
contents, which could allow us to simultaneously adjust both 
opposing concepts. At the same time, they will organically combine 
into a unique scientific texture. When the scientists achieve a 
prospective level to succeed in making attribution for the principal 
categories of the Universe, the effective model of the creation of the 
world will be elaborated. The attribution of real physical contents to 
these categories takes place directly in the course of realization of the 
scenario of the world creation. 

It is no mere chance that we made a brief review of formation of 
fundamental conceptual definitions in modern science. We needed to 
make this historical excursus to wider understand the general 
situation concerning the attribution of fundamental categories of the 
Universe and impartially assess the situation for formation of 
scientific concept of the creation of the world. It follows from the 
aforesaid that this situation was characterized by long-term 
conceptual crisis which affected theoretical assessment of the 
fundamental categories of the Universe. This crisis inevitably 
transformed into the scientific vision of this great creative and 
generating act, which is called 'the creation of the world'. 

Hence, there are two theoretical scenarios of the world creation � 
Devine and scientific � before us. Moreover, we have the really 



functioning Universe in its unique copy and with its evolutionary 
development which leaves no alternative. Let's try to understand 
which of these two scenarios corresponds to the results of 
experimental observation for sure, unifies our thinking and contains 
the least number of logically incomplete initial principles, whose 
combinatorics make possible to establish the relationship between all 
physical regularities which govern the existence of the Universe. 

First of all, let us attentively consider the scientific version of the 
creation of the world, following the scenario of the Big Bang. Let us 
recall the origin of this theory. Once the American astronomer Edwin 
Hubble while observing the Universe through the telescope 
discovered the red shift of spectral lines of light signal emitted by 
remote galaxies. It was natural to explain the registered red shift by 
the Doppler change of light signal emitted by galaxies moving at a 
great velocity away (from us and, in general, from each other). The 
series of observations proved that the law of recession of galaxies in 
any direction is universal and general; it seems that the Universe 
expands as a whole. The other important discovery is related to 
velocities of receding galaxies, which are proportional to the distance 
to these objects. Taking into account the laws of formal logics, one 
must assume that certain time ago all the substance in the Universe 
was concentrated in a bounded region of the cosmic space. This 
assumption resulted fructiferous, and the science turned to the theory 
of the Big Bang. 

We give this historical information about the formation of the Big 
Bang theory with the purpose to demonstrate a purely accidental 
character of its appearance. No mention was made of a 
comprehensive research and deep, systematic analysis needed to 
formulate such a wide-ranging generalizations as the theory of the 
creation of the world. In fact, the problem was formulated in a very 
simple way: it was needed to explain unexpectedly discovered red 
shift of spectral lines emitted by remote galaxies. The solution of this 
problem which looked as a 'single-pass' one, resulted in appearance 
of the global scenario of the world creation. 

For justice' sake we must mention the professor of the Petrograd 
University Aleksandr Fridman, who found non-stationary solutions 
of gravitational equations of the general theory of relativity prior to 



Hubble's discovery. Hence, Fridman pointed out the possibility of 
existence of a non-stationary Universe. However, Fridman's works 
for certain reasons didn't directly affect the appearance of the Big 
Bang theory. 

Nobody disputes the objective interrelation between the whole 
and its parts in nature. The correct distribution of these relations may 
serve as certain basis providing the successful mastery of the internal 
contents of the object of our interest. The usual mistake in 
speculations about the whole and its parts is the statement when 
particular attributes are deemed governing arguments, which 
determine general properties of the phenomena under research. When, 
for example, basing on the colour of the sea wave a man starts to 
comment the history of the origin of the Indian Ocean. Such a 
methodology is categorically non-applicable, moreover, it is 
absolutely non-applicable when working over the construction of 
such a quasi-scale generalization as the theoretical model of the 
Universe. In no way one can agree with the explanation of the shift 
of spectral lines of light signal emitted by remote galaxies basing on 
the presented new theory of the creation of the world. But it 
happened in the case of the Big Bang. It is allowed to advance from 
the whole to the particular, but not vice versa. 

Unfortunately, all the complicated construction of our knowledge 
about the life of the Universe was erected mainly using this faulty 
method � from the specific to the whole. As a result, we continuously 
adjust and infinitely correct our vision of the life of the Universe 
taking into account recently discovered particulars. Imaginary unity 
of a reconstituted physical picture of the world, in reality, is unstable. 
The centuries-old experience of the natural sciences complex 
development with its never-ending amendments and reconstructions 
proves it. It happens, in the first place, because till now we don't 
understand the final goal of the cognition itself, which lasts for 
several millennia according to the principle � from the specific to the 
general. But what shall we say about goals, if we don't know 
whether the chosen course of natural sciences development is correct. 
It is not ruled out that all the theoretical schemes we use to orient 
ourselves in the visual environment have no relation to the reality, 
but are a product of our intellectual self-expression. 



In this respect, the Holy Scripture offers us a unique chance to 
build an optimal model of the Universe with observance of the most 
prospective methodology of passing from the general to the specific. 
The Book of Genesis from the first page shows us the integer scheme 
of appearance of the Universe in its final form. It is a unique and 
unparallel possibility for us to reconstruct the complete theoretical 
scheme of the Universe origin basing on the firm, once and for all 
laid grounds. It goes without saying that science must not strike a 
wounded pose, it must respectfully try and grasp the meaning of the 
Prophet Moses Book. It is needed to take into account the �poque, 
the Book has been written, and the intellectual level of a potential 
reader. And the main thing: we must try to choose the adequate 
physical equivalent to the events of the first days of the creation 
described in the Book of Genesis. Moreover, we don't have the right 
to neglect such a unique opportunity: the Holy Scripture enjoys a 
very high, unique authority. 

Going back to the Big Bang theory we can note, that taking into 
account the aforesaid four principal statements whose frameworks 
allow the theoretical thought to materially attribute the categories of 
'space' and 'substance', this concept obviously adheres 
Democritus's division of the world into two arches � 'matter-
substance' and 'space-void'. The most primitive, antique 
philosophical statement invisibly exists in the Big Bang scenario. 
The scientific version directly states that some time ago all the 
substance in the Universe was concentrated in a bounded region of 
the cosmic space and suddenly scattered in the void in any direction 
as a result of a gigantic explosion. It stands to reason that any of four 
principal statements has the right to aspire to exclusive attention in 
the course of possible attribution of principal categories of the 
Universe while elaborating the theoretical scenario of the creation of 
the world. In this respect they posses equal rights in full. However, 
the statements which divide the world into two arches are inevitably 
hampered by fateful questions: Who has made this division? What is 
the purpose for it? When did it happen? How did it occur? If we 
assume that the world always consisted of two independent arches, 
we definitively deny the idea of reducing principal categories of the 



Universe to a unique conceptual substance, hence, we deny the 
possibility to elaborate the unified field theory forever. 

Now, where is such a luxury from? All the centuries-old 
experience proves the contrary. Practically at every step we 
encounter the extreme stinginess of the creator-nature. Then the 
extravagant theory of world division into two arches seems very 
irrational. Especially as there are no positive reasons prohibiting the 
Universe to reduce to an integrated material substance. 

Comparing the accumulated data we conclude that the galaxies are 
distributed non-uniformly in different zones of space of equal 
volume, taken in depths of the visually graspable outer space, in 
different directions from the Earth. Moreover, in large-scale velocity 
measurements the recession of galaxies in different directions is the 
same and depends exclusively on the distance to the observed object. 
Hence, the conclusion about the uniform and isotropic visible part of 
the Universe is made. But such a conclusion seems too unexpected in 
case of explosion origin of the Universe. Then, to make fragments 
thrown out from the epicentre of the Big Bang to uniformly and 
isotropically distribute in the outer space, a very specific 
organization of the initial conditions of the explosion must be 
realized; but it is difficult to naturally explain it. 

We must keep in mind that in all the elaborated dispositions of the 
Big Bang, the initial stage of the event terrifically depends on the 
selection of certain special conditions. It includes parameters fitting 
to the unique physical accuracy. The impression is that the 
Providence took care of forming favourable conditions for 
appearance of nearly any elementary particle. And according to our 
estimations, there are almost 1080 elementary particles only in the 
visible part of the Universe. 

Speaking of the extraordinary accuracy of parameters fitting at the 
early stage of the Universe development, we can think of the 
'cosmological constant problem'. It consists in fantastic assumption 
that the initial energy of vacuum must differ from zero and have the 
accuracy of the order of 10-106. This requirement results from the 
compensation mechanism of vacuum density jumps occurring 
because of phase transitions in gauge theories of a grand unification. 
There is no need to explain the complete mechanism of this 



unyielding magnitude calculation in details; we shall limit ourselves 
by statement of the fact of its existence. 

Now, it should be mentioned a riddle of an unbelievable proximity 
of the Universe to the three-dimensional space (k = 0) at its early 
stages of existence. This riddle is known as the 'problem of a plane'. 
It is caused by the circumstance that the Universe needs a very fine 
-parameter fitting for its successful evolution from the moment of 
explosion up to the present time (
OO is the ratio of the average energy 
density in the Universe and so called 'critical density'). Einstein's 
equations, the actual cosmological models are based on, are written 
in such a way that the problem of whether the Universe expansion 
changes for its compression or continues without end, depends on the 
value of O. For the Universe to develop in accordance with the 
scenario of the Big Bang and exist till nowadays (as the theoretical 
predictions state), the O-parameter fitting must be no less than 10-59 
at the early stage. If this condition is not met, the expansion of the 
closed Universe will change for its compression within Plank's 
interval of time or so, and the open Universe will expand so swiftly 
that the considerable masses of substance will not have time to be 
formed. There is no necessity to describe the complete calculation of 
this incredible small magnitude; we mention only the fact of its 
existence. 

The existence of unparallel, fantastically small magnitudes in the 
theory of the Big Bang is the most mysterious aspect of this event 
and makes up to be careful not to deal with an artefact. There is a 
bundle of examples of such a succession when firstly a preconceived 
idea appears and then, justificative arguments are gleaned to please it. 
As a rule, these arguments, due to a farfetchedness of the general 
idea, possess extraordinary, unique character. Usually the adepts of 
the Big Bang theory refer to the uncommonness of the event, its 
exclusiveness, hence, the possibility to introduce certain 
'peculiarities'. To put it bluntly, they try to choose rules of play 
which are convenient for them, and using these rules they play the 
Universal patience. Though, the fundamental problem of the 
cosmology consists in constructing such a theoretical model where 
the Universe exists and develops to its actual state absolutely 



independently of the peculiarities of initial conditions, obeying the 
fundamental laws of physics only. 

It is considered that the possibility to return in time to the very 
beginning of the Universe existence (when time t = 0) directly 
depends on our knowledge in the sphere of interaction of elementary 
particles having high densities and energies. Here the cosmologic 
problems directly border on physics of the micro-world. It is non-
random that all the dispositions of the Big Bang scenarios are built 
on the following basis: t ~ 0.3 sec., temperature T ~ deg., 
density P ~ 107 g/cm3 (we believe that when the density P ~ 107 
g/cm3 a neutrino leaves a nucleon and practically lives till nowadays). 
On making acquaintance with such a dashing reconnoitring, one 
becomes deep in thoughts. If we venture to bank in a heap, at one 
stroke, all the substance existing in the Universe and arrange 
grandiose cosmic fireworks, then after such a breathtaking flight of 
fantasy we must know exactly what are the ordinary elementary 
particles, so to say, the most primitive peaces of substance. However, 
we are far from it. Just now we face the greatest difficulties. It is 
easy and light-heartedly to discuss the things which happened in the 
Universe billions of years ago (due to remoteness of events and 
unavailability of witness, as the saying goes), but it is much more 
difficult to examine the things on your writing desk. 
10103�

To tell the truth, today none of the scientists is able to clearly 
explain what the ordinary electron is. What is its real physical 
essence? Actually, we cannot deny any real objective environment to 
electron. The theoretical thought is quite helpless, and any 
considerations about any quasi-processes which took place billions 
of years ago in the Universe, seem too premature. Without any doubt, 
we can and must elaborate various scenarios of the creation of the 
world, but at the same time we must not loose sense of harmony. Can 
we speak about modes of substance functioning in the Universe, if it 
doesn't lead us to the understanding of elementary, primary elements 
of this grandiose aggregation? 

The principal shortcoming of the Big Bang theory is its 
undisguised non-productivity. Nothing resulted or followed from this 
theory some day. The science cannot mention at least one physical 
idea based on this conception. The red shift of spectral lines emitted 



by remote galaxies was registered before the Big Bang theory. The 
relict emission was also discovered absolutely unexpectedly and 
quite independently of the Big Bang conception. The well-known 
formula: 'the mountain has brought forth a mouse', in reality, is 
more fruitful than the scenario of the creation of the world the 
science offers for consideration. The global theory intended to 
interpret the greatest act of the 'birth of the Universe' cannot exist as 
a 'thing in itself' and 'for its sake'. The theory must lead to 
principal problems of the modern natural sciences and offer their 
solutions. 

In particular, it would be very convincing if the accepted theory of 
the creation of the world finds the explanation of one of the most 
universal and all-embracing physical interactions known as the 
'universal gravitation'. It is desirable that the scientific conception 
of the creation of the Universe should include the ideas which could 
help to systemise various and, sometimes, contradictory information 
concerning the micro-world, for instance, corpuscular-wave duality. 
It goes without saying that such a theory must contribute to 
overcoming the acute conceptual crisis related to attribution of the 
principal categories of the Universe. One would like to expect many 
other important conclusions basing on the valuable theory of the 
creation of the world. But the Big Bang hypothesis rather actively 
creates new questions than answers ours. And it is inadmissible for 
such a reputable cosmological generalization. As a result, a very big 
number of questions without answers which appear from the Big 
Bang theory cross out the cognitive value of the interpretation of the 
red shift of light signal emitted by remote galaxies basing on 
Doppler's effect. It happens any time when an attempt to explain any 
complicated and abstruse thing using more complicated or very 
obscure arguments, is made. 

At the same time, as we have already mentioned, we have the 
scenario proposed by the Holy Scripture at our disposal, which can 
offer a consistent and fruitful picture of the creation of the world if 
supplemented with adequate physical ideas. And from this picture, 
efficient ideas serving as a basis to solve actual problems of natural 
sciences will naturally appear. In this context we have in mind those 
events of the first days of creation, described by Moses in the Book 



of Genesis. Those days, when God created earth and heaven, likely, 
from nothing. 

Taking into account the four principal statements for possible 
attribution of the categories of 'space' and 'substance', the Bible 
version of the creation of the world well agrees with the fourth 
variant of the considered set of theoretically acceptable statements. 
According to this variant, space and material objects of the substance 
are the derivatives of the integrated material subject. They are 
different modifications of matrix space of the Universe which can 
take qualitatively distinctive forms depending on peculiarities of 
actual physical conditions and functioning modes. 

The objective interaction of a man with the outer space and the 
centuries-old experience solidly fixed the division of the world into 
'void' and 'matter' in our conscience. To conform our perception of 
the world around us to the fourth statement we need to make a 
speculative effort and try to imagine all the diversity of the world as 
manifestation of different physical states of the absolute matrix space 
of the Universe. Let us illustrate this idea. 

Imagine a homogeneous physical medium, let it be common water 
and an ice sphere of a football diameter in it. Water will represent the 
space, and the ice sphere acts as a substance. As to its material 
interpretation, the ice sphere is a qualitatively distinctive form of the 
local zone of the medium it exists in. Both water and ice are usual 
molecules H2O. It is the difference of their temperature-energy levels, 
or qualitatively distinctive state of H2O molecules that allows us to 
clearly distinguish between these two forms of material constructions. 
This is a visual model that illustrates the character of interrelations 
between space and substance in accordance with the fourth principal 
statement for the possible material attribution of the fundamental 
categories of the Universe. This model perfectly meets the 
requirements of the Bible version of the world creation. In 
concordance with this version a spontaneous possibility to create 
substance from matrix space exists, and no additional material tools 
are needed. 

If we need to choose names for the fundamental categories of the 
Universe again, then in accordance with the requirements of the 
fourth principal statement it would be reasonable to reserve the 



traditional definition of the 'space' for absolute matrix space of the 
Universe. It should be mentioned that the physical state of the matrix 
space is taken as a zero normal. Then all the other states of the matrix 
space, being deviations from the zero normal, must be called 'contra-
space' and combine the exposed material world in the form of 
'field', 'substance', and 'time'. But we shall keep to the historically 
established names for fundamental categories, taking in mind that all 
of them express different states of the matrix matter of the absolute 
space of the Universe. 

An extremely important and irreplaceable advantage of the fourth 
fundamental statement, which considers space and substance as 
derivative of a single matrix matter, is its utmost inclination to 
evolution. This statement implies the objective possibility for self-
appearance of massive material objects directly from space 
substratum. In this case the substance may appear in any zone of the 
space and be relegated to obscurity in quite calm and understandable 
way, like ice formation and melting. Then it is no need to invent 
noisy illuminations of the Big Bang type. It is important that in the 
context of the fourth principal statement, the Holy Gospel according 
to Saint John, which begins with sublime verse: 'In the beginning 
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God', 
acquires more deep and fructiferous cognitive weight than other 
pseudoscientific conclusions. 

The whole point is that in the verses of Saint John the Evangelist 
the expression 'Word' � which is also 'Logos' � is given an 
extremely lofty, hypostatic meaning. And it is not strange that this 
key biblical definition is written with a capital letter. In compliance 
with the fourth principal statement about the possible attribution of 
the categories of 'space' and 'substance', the appearance of 
substance with the help of God's 'Word' may be interpreted as a 
wide-ranging crystallisation of substance from the matrix space at 
behest of the Supreme ecumenical will. Envoys of the Supreme 
ecumenical will may be inoculating 'ideas-crystals', as well as any 
elementary particle possessing its rest mass. Their presence in the 
concentrated material space may disturb from the state of equilibrium 
and provoke the beginning of crystallization reaction. Hence, 
considerable masses of substance, like stars, planets and galactic 



systems, must be formed. The crystallization process in concentrated 
media is well studied and accessible to our understanding. 

Therefore, we have every reason to assume that the 'Word' really 
was at the source of our planet birth, and the idea itself deserves 
scientific attention. Saint John's statement that 'In the beginning was 
the Word' fully corresponds to Moses' narration about the first days 
of the creation of the world due to the efforts of the Providence. This 
creation took place according to the Hebrew word 'bara', which 
means 'create from nothing'. The act of creation of everything from 
nothing is the token of infinite variety of forms of the Universe 
existence. Because embodied initial material would limit the range of 
material world manifestations. In the Universe constructed in 
accordance with the theological scenario, any fixed forms of material 
structures existence actually are not available. The continuous 
process of space transition into substance and vice versa takes place 
in it. 

Recall the Universe model according to the Big Bang scenario. It 
is utmost static, though seems to be dynamical. The only variable is 
the distance between masses of substance. The principal components 
of the Universe, or its embodied component are present in the Big 
Bang theory in once given stationary forms. One can say that it is an 
undisguised mechanical model with a strong accent on Democritus 
world division into two arches: matter-substance and space-void. 

The scientific optimism of the Big Bang theory is based on the 
firm belief that the nature is a naturalized execution of a certain 
unyielding logical scheme, when all future states of a physical 
system definitely result from the state of this system at a certain 
moment of time. This theory reflects the most primitive dialectics of 
a standard human thinking based on cause-effect relationship. We 
have already got accustomed to interpret any event as inevitably 
necessary and obeying the law of cause-effect relationship between 
phenomena in full. As if only they may reflect objective regularities 
of the outer world evolution. 

Meanwhile we know for certain that the laws of nature are of no 
casual but, mainly, statistical character. The continuous change of 
possible states probabilities takes place in the physical world around 
us. That's why there is no reason or need to speak about rigorous 



cause-effect, definite relations. While the adepts of the Big Bang 
theory use such relations to advance towards the early stages of the 
Universe life. 

In fact, there is no necessity for us to know the reasons for 
appearance of unstable state of the matrix matter and beginning of 
large-scale substance crystallization at any zone of the cosmic space. 
It is much more important for us to get understanding of the 
possibility for substance appearing from matrix matter of the space 
itself. The matrix matter constantly balances near the mark 
corresponding to the possible initiation of the large-scale 
crystallisation of the substance or, vice versa, the transformation of 
substance into the space matter. But for very persistent atheists or 
adepts of the determinism we can offer consolatory assumption 
stating that inter-transformation between space and substance takes 
place due to constant movement of galactic masses. In this case the 
nulling mechanism of symmetrical distribution of masses of 
substance in the cosmic space becomes activated. 

We believe, that, firstly, the possibility for spontaneous self-
appearance of substance from the matrix matter of space allows us to 
find accord between the Bible and scientific versions of the creation 
of the world. Secondly, space and substance reduction to an 
integrated material substance gives the possibility to take natural 
sciences out of the complicated conceptual crisis pursuing attribution 
of fundamental categories of the Universe. And the principal thing is 
the prospect to create universal quantum-relativistic theory of motion 
on the basis of renewed fundamental conceptual arsenal. 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERSONAL SPACE � TIME CONTINUUM, 
WHAT IS IT? 

The assumption of a universal material substance standing behind 
the category of 'space' is not new. For the first time this idea 
appeared when wave properties of light were discovered. Realization 
of wave processes implies the existence of a physical system or 
medium capable of being in the state of wave excitation and carry 
energy. Pursuant to these ideas the wave attributes of light may be 
naturally explained by the existence of a certain type of luminiferous 
ether, which expresses definite properties of material space 
guaranteeing the process of light waves propagation. For long years 
the idea of the luminiferous ether ranked solidly in theoretical 
reasoning, and it seemed sufficient to fix the priority of this 
hypothesis on the basis of some supplementary experimental 
observations. Various models (sometimes, they were clumsy) of 
'gaseous' or 'jellylike' state of ether were proposed, they 
corresponded to longitudinal or transversal character of light waves 
propagation. 

We understand quite well that the idea of luminiferous ether gives 
physical space its qualities of objective reality, and these qualities 
can be observed and registered together with material objects. In 
such a case, motion must be considered not only as a visible 
displacement of material objects with respect to each other, but also 
as controllable displacement of material objects with respect to the 
observed space, which plays a part of luminiferous medium. Then 



any attempt to consider material space as absolute and fixed frame of 
reference suitable for different measurements and observations, 
seems quite logical. At the end of the nineteenth century the 
physicists, including the experimenters Michelson and Morley, were 
absolutely sure that on-land instruments must register the velocity of 
the orbital motion of our planet about the Sun with respect to the 
luminiferous ether. 

Being adepts of the idea of the luminiferous ether, these scientists 
endowed the absolute space with certain hypothetical properties 
allowing the space to be in the state of wave disturbance and function 
like mechanical light-transferring medium. Then the velocity of light 
signal near the surface of the Earth must differ in different directions 
and depend on orientation of planet's motion in the absolute 
luminiferous space. In other words, a simple rule of addition of 
velocities must be true; this rule takes into account the velocity of 
light propagation in hypothetical ether and the velocity of the planet 
relative to the luminiferous space. It was expected to find the 
absolute velocity of the Earth relative to the luminiferous space of 
the Universe, comparing the sum of the aforesaid velocities in 
different directions. 

When Michelson and Morley took a decision to conduct their 
famous experiments to discover the effect of the ether wind, they, 
supposedly, were encouraged by Foucault's experiments. These 
experiments allowed the scientist to observe the Earth rotation about 
its axis using laboratory method. As it was possible to register the 
results of such rotation with the help of on-land devices, it seemed 
logical to observe the planet motion relative to the absolute 
luminiferous space acting as a universal frame of reference. The 
velocity of the Earth motion in its orbit was known to be about thirty 
kilometres per hour. 

The scientists brilliantly prepared and performed a series of witty 
experiments, and, in their opinion, the experiments had to register the 
existence of the ether wind. But the disappointment of the scientists 
was very great when the devices failed to give expected results. The 
speed of light signals propagation in any direction was the same. It 
seemed that the Earth maintained the state of rest relative to the light 
ether and there were no evidences of the effect of velocity addition. 



The negative results of the experiments on ether wind registration 
caused deep confusion. Introduction of an active space material 
medium in the scientific use was urgently needed. Such a medium 
could exercise its wave-forming function, which is very important in 
the light of an impressive manifestation of the wave nature of the 
micro-world physics. The other reason consisted in a great wish to 
have a reliable universal frame of reference related to universal space 
and time framework. This frame of reference, in reality, should be 
all-embracing, and it would become possible and convenient to show 
the global picture of the world from any point in the Universe. 
However, insuperable logic of experimental results in every possible 
way impeded any realization of these apparently sound expectations. 

Though, the situation required adoption of any effective and 
satisfactory explanations. The thing is that negative result of 
experiments is also a distinctive outcome, and as any outcome it 
needs relevant comments. It is necessary to say that sometimes we 
are mistaken while extolling the role of experiments in science. 
Really crucial decisions are taken rather on the basis of explanations 
which follow experiments than the experiments themselves. But 
certain interested parties are present here, as it happens in any man's 
activity. They can interpret the same event or phenomenon in a way 
which is convenient for their world-view and reflects their subjective 
creative aspirations. It can be easily seen in the debates on the results 
of the experiments performed by Michelson and Morley. 

Now let us formulate a question: how did Albert Einstein make a 
categorical declaration that luminiferous ether didn't and couldn't 
exist in nature, if he based on the results of the experiments which 
did not confirm existence of the ether wind? Such a conclusion isn't 
indisputable, as it may be seen at first sight. Michelson and Morley 
formulated a concrete problem for themselves: they tried to register 
an effect of the ether wind. But the results of their experiments were 
negative. They clearly fixed absence of any ether wind in the vicinity 
of the surface of the planet. This statement constitutes and limits 
indisputable conclusions based on the results of the experiments 
commented upon. Einstein, in his turn, arbitrarily develops this 
statement and makes a step which is far from irreproachability, if 
basing on the logical standpoint. He declares that as the ether wind 



doesn't exist, hence, no luminiferous ether may exist. Formally, a 
faulty practice was actuated, and the well-known principle 'if the 
facts are against us, then it is worth for these fact' prevailed. 

In fact, let us think, why did Einstein inseparably linked the 
existence of the luminiferous ether and the effect of the ether wind? 
These self-reliant physical arguments may have their independent 
self-expression. The idea of light ether existence itself is not obliged 
to definitely lead to the effect of the ether wind. We know that for the 
ether wind to appear, two principal requirements must be strictly met. 
Firstly, the existence of the luminiferous ether, and secondly, the 
existence of two relative velocities (constant velocity of light signal 
propagation in void and the velocity of the Earth motion relative to 
the luminiferous space) is needed. Non-compliance with any of these 
two mandatory conditions results in negative results in the 
experiments on the ether wind discovery. Einstein based his 
reasoning on the simplest fundamental laying practically on the 
surface. He supposed that the ether wind didn't exist because of the 
deficit of the luminiferous ether, and declared this principle to be the 
core requirement for his relativistic theory functioning. However, the 
other way to interpret the results of the experiment made by 
Michelson and Morley was needed, though this approach didn't get a 
due progress. The alternative variant is formulated in the following 
way: the ether wind doesn't exist because of absence of one of two 
relative velocities, the fact of their availability being the mandatory 
condition for the appearance of the ether wind effect. In other words, 
the principally needed speed of the Earth motion relative to the 
luminiferous space is missed. 

The planet in fact rotates about the Sun, but it doesn't imply that it 
definitely moves relative to the luminiferous space. The statement 
'the Earth moves relative to the light ether at a speed of thirty 
kilometres per second' makes real physical sense if we know to 
demonstrate that the metric structure of the universal luminiferous 
ether is firmly bound to the solar mass. If this key requirement isn't 
met, any experiments aimed at detection of the ether wind effect, 
cannot and will not lead to positive results. However, we don't have 
any cogent arguments to absolutize solar mass and consider it as a 
privileged material object in the Universe, the light ether metric 



being related to it. Therefore, there are no reasons to link the speed of 
the planet motion in its orbit about the Sun to the speed of the Earth 
motion relative to the luminiferous space. 

One must note that the science repeatedly made attempts to 
remove one of the two speeds providing the opportunity to register 
the ether wind effect. As a rule, it was related to the idea to 
gravitationally bind the luminiferous ether to the mass of the planet. 
The scientists supposed that the Earth, during its motion in the 
absolute space, carries the spacious luminiferous shell along with it, 
as it carries the atmosphere along. It is clear, that such a version 
eliminates the factor of the Earth displacement relative to the 
luminiferous ether and allows developing of counter-Einstein's 
interpretation of the results of Michelson and Morley experiments. 
The principal weak point of the idea consists in various 'technical' 
difficulties arising in the course of realization of the model of the 
appropriate luminiferous ether, capable to displace relative to the 
absolute space together with the mass of the planet. 

Meanwhile, the theoretical statement itself, making emphasis 
rather on personally oriented luminiferous space organically linked 
with the mass of the object under investigations, than on the absolute 
luminiferous ether, is in good compliance with Einstein's light 
postulates. In fact, one can assume that every material object with 
rest mass, for instance, our planet, acquires its personally oriented 
luminiferous space because of its interaction with the absolute 
material space of the Universe. It is the existence of the personal, 
four-dimensional space-time, which is metrically related to the centre 
of mass of the planet, that makes the light postulates true and 
impedes appearance of the ether wind effect. 

If we generalize this statement and declare that not only the Earth, 
but every material object with rest mass possesses its personal 
luminiferous space-time, then the law of constant light speed in void 
becomes mandatory for an observer related to any body of reference. 
Then one and the same light ray has the same speed for various 
observers moving with their devices relative to each other. The idea 
of personal luminiferous ether existence is in good compliance with 
Einstein's light postulates, though the author of relativistic theory 
categorically rejected the existence of the luminiferous ether. 



It is obvious that the task to give concrete physical meaning to the 
idea upholding the existence of the personal luminiferous space-time, 
develop it and obtain fundamental, mathematical consequence is 
much more difficult than the way of luminiferous ether negation 
chosen by Einstein. Nevertheless, we emphasise that repeatedly 
confirmed results of the experiments on ether wind existence, in 
principle, allow us to elaborate counter-Einstein theory of motion, 
which doesn't contradict the presence of the luminiferous ether. 
Later we shall show that such an ether-acceptable conception of 
kinematics of motion helps to move the theory of relativity to a more 
substantial level and then it becomes possible to use quantum 
regularities. 

It was already mentioned that quite a contradictory situation was 
formed with respect to the attribution of the category of 'space' 
(because of the results of Michelson-Morley experiments) at the time 
when the special theory of relativity intended for description of 
inertial state of physical systems was developed. On the one hand, 
experiments soundly demonstrated unavailability of the ether wind. 
On the other hand, the same experiments expressively indicated that 
circumterrestrial space belonged to the observed material substance, 
because the space under investigation possessed a set of specific 
physical properties. These properties were compactly formulated by 
Einstein as his light postulates. It is clear that light postulates look 
like intellectual ghosts beyond material attribution, and we simply 
must relate the circumterrestrial space together with the light 
postulates to observed material substance. As a result, a very serious 
dilemma appears: whether it was necessary to reject the idea of the 
luminiferous ether or find such a theoretical conceptual interpretation 
for the circumterrestrial space which could unite seemingly 
incompatible properties. The thing is that the imaginary 
circumterrestrial space must obey the light postulates and, hence, be 
subject to the material attribution. At the same time, the imaginary 
circumterrestrial space must reject the ether wind phenomenon. 

Ii is well-known than in such a contradictive situation Einstein 
didn't follow the way of looking for adequate physical image for the 
circumterrestrial space, which could satisfy the results of Michelson-
Morley experiments. He decided to simplify the situation and 



rejected the idea of the luminiferous space itself. However, rejecting 
the idea of luminiferous ether he didn't propose any acceptable 
alternative instead of it to attribute the circumterrestrial space with its 
light postulates. The author of the relativistic theory put himself in an 
exclusively difficult situation. There was nothing else left for him to 
do but to transform this mainly physical question into a mathematical 
sphere. The scientist threw a four-dimensional coordinate grid over 
the circumterrestrial space and began to use it as a universal space-
time framework which served as a background for his picture of the 
world. Einstein had to do an unprecedented step to give the status of 
objective reality to this mathematical coordinate system and make it 
compatible with the results of the experiments on the ether wind 
discovery. The mathematical structure was given physical properties, 
which were compactly formulated in light postulates. 

Of course, we must appreciate the decision of the scientist, who 
ventured to raise a mathematical structure to the level of physical 
argument, but at the same time we must clearly realize that such a 
situation isn't standard. Without any doubt, any substitution of 
physical reality by mathematical constructions is a forced procedure; 
it needs persistent search of real physical essence behind all these 
abstract constructions, especially, in the course of solution of 
fundamental problems. A latent danger of carrying our knowledge 
into the sphere of artificial intellectual maxims always exists. 
Naturally, we must hope that the deducted mathematical regularities 
reflect real state of things in the world and may act as consequences 
of observed mathematical phenomena. But in no case any 
mathematical construction may act as a cause, which determines 
objective physical properties itself. The thing is that two apples plus 
two apples is, of course, four apples. But to get together four apples 
we need to do certain work related to overcoming the inertia, for 
instance. The apples themselves, at the command 'two plus two' 
jump only in the circus. 

It goes without saying that any physical idea which is expected to 
correspond to objective reality, must be followed by mathematical 
corollaries. Mathematical equations, though being absolutely abstract, 
possess internal rigor. In their interaction with conceptual statements 
they seem to control the truth of our theoretical structures and detect 



any logical arbitrariness. Meanwhile, this statement must not take a 
form of a contrary dependence when mathematical construction is 
raised to the level of physical arguments. Without any doubt, the 
methodology of mathematical structures aimed at an intentional 
taking of mathematical structures to the level of physical realities, is 
a forced procedure. It is a direct consequence of the deficit of the 
conceptual arsenal, which is used in modern scientific circulation. 

Such a spontaneous presentation of mathematical solutions and 
their further application to physical consequences are clearly seen in 
the logical texture of the theory of relativity. That's how matters 
stand with light postulates when they are associated with four-
dimensional coordinate grids, or with general theory of relativity 
when Riemann space-time geometry is raised to the level of the 
gravitational field. What is the use of such a method? 

Assume that Einstein has found a mathematical expression, which 
helps to consider time in the united mathematical manifold along 
with space dimensions. But it doesn't mean that this expression can 
give us any intelligent idea about the matching of these different 
physical categories. To speak formally, the equations of the special 
theory of relativity don't give rise to doubts, but at the same time, do 
not budge things an inch on the way of understanding the physical 
nature of the four-dimensional space-time, even if the light postulates 
are applicable to it. It happens because Einstein always used bare 
mathematical structures as fundamental for his theoretical 
constructions. It would be better to introduce a suitable conceptual 
context, and then elaborate them up to desirable mathematical 
corollaries. 

Without any doubt, Einstein's scale and level of creative efforts 
was so high that he couldn't make any declarations because of his 
inattentiveness or thoughtless. However, we permit ourselves to 
indicate certain incompliance between the logics of mathematical 
tools used in the relativistic theory and Einstein's conceptual context. 

It is known that the key equation of the special theory of relativity 
in the most general case is written as follows: 

 

()()22222zyxctS++-=. (3.1) 



It is believed that equation (3.1) is originated from the four-
dimensional space-time coordinate systems. Such coordinate systems 
appear as a result of combining three space coordinates axes with 
another or the fourth time dimension. The geometry where a distance 
between two points is determined by equation (3.1) is called 
Minkowski geometry. Minkowski geometry reflects a combined 
space-time topology, because along with space distances it also 
includes time intervals. That's why it is considered that the theory of 
relativity is the theory of motion of material objects in four-
dimensional space-time, in contrast to Newtonian mechanics, which 
describes motion in space and time taken separately. 

It is obvious that the right side of equation (3.1) includes two 
substantially autonomous physical arguments. Usually the first 
member in the right side of this equality, (, is identified with time 
coordinate axis. The second member, 
)2ct(2x+)22zy+, is related to 
combination of three space dimensions. The difference between these 
two members-arguments is a solution for a four-dimensional space-
time interval, , limited by two check points on the trajectory of a 
test body. The majority of researchers relate the expression 
2S()2ct)2ctto 
the fourth time dimension. More cautious scientists call (the 
'fourth imaginary coordinate'. 

But if we analyze the dimension of ()2ct, which is secsec/m�secsec/m�, it 
is safe to say that this expression in no case may be identified with 
coordinate dimension only. A coordinate axis, in the strict sense, is a 
consecutive series of points in the space or moments in time. And the 
dimension of (allows us to naturally and truly consider this 
expression as still unknown three-dimensional function in a 
respective three-digit coordinate system, having axes as 
)2ct. 

It is impossible to overestimate the level of understanding 
physical nature of the expression ()2ctbecause it is this argument that 
concentrates the relativistic essence of the theory of relativity. When 
we identify this expression with one coordinate axis and call it the 
'fourth coordinate', an unfortunate inaccuracy takes place. Of course, 
it is possible to call anything as you wish, but we must aspire to use 



definitions reflecting the real character of the phenomena we study. 
In this sense, all known speculations about the 'fourth' or 
'imaginary' coordinate axis in equations of the theory of relativity, 
look absolutely unsatisfactory. To accept the one-dimensional 
interpretation of the topology of ()2ctwe need to try to find, as 
minimum, an explanation of metric three-digits for this exotic 
coordinate dimension. Following an open-minded logics and 
agreeing with obvious tree-digit metric structure of the expression 
, we must try to clarify, what, in fact, is hidden behind this 
mysterious argument of the famous equation by Hermann 
Minkowski. 
()2ct

It happened that the theory of relativity didn't develop along the 
way of the adequate interpretation of the true topology of the 
expression , hence, of the adequate interpretation of the true 
metric of equality (3.1). We continue to use this equation and 
understand it as equivalent for interval definition in a supposed four-
dimensional geometric manifold, which allows us to determine 
mathematical dependence of the results of relative motion. However, 
all the attempts to represent a universal geodesic line in Einstein's 
four-dimensional space-time, and represent it figuratively or 
graphically, always failed. 
()2ct

There is no need to prove that unavailability of a clear idea about 
the true topology of chosen mathematical method essentially restricts 
its cognitive value. Thus, the traditional one-dimensional 
interpretation of a metric structure of the expression ()2ctisn't only 
imperfect. Undoubtedly, Minkowski's equation interpretation in such 
a geometrical expression impedes the further development of the 
theory of relativity itself. Moreover, it definitely witnesses the 
serious insufficiency of the theoretical conceptual arsenal used in it. 
The problem does not consist in the narrow-mindedness of our 
imagination, as some authors assert. First of all, the problem consists 
in conceptual groundlessness of the notional background for the 
reconstructed picture of kinematics of motion. 

When Einstein began to develop his general theory of relativity 
destined to describe non-uniform motion, and at the same time, solve 



problem of gravitational interactions, it was discovered that the 
nature of universal gravitation is tightly linked to geometrical 
properties of space-time. This link was soundly expressed in the 
equivalence principle, which stated absolute identity of inertial and 
gravitational masses. The idea of curved space-time existence 
extremely aggravated the problem of finding an adequate physical 
image for this absolutely objective reality. It became inconvenient to 
limit oneself by mathematical coordinate grinds only. The matter is 
that here we deal with global physical forces and interactions, and 
any fundamental physical factor must be related to it. 

Deficit of an adequate conceptual filling in interpretation of the 
topology of the four-dimensional space-time in the special theory of 
relativity and sound failure in explanation of the physical nature of 
light postulates inevitably transformed into conceptual context of the 
general theory of relativity. The conceptual deficit became an 
insuperable obstacle on the way of establishing the real physical 
status of the category of 'space-time' and its role in gravitational 
interactions realization. In this fuzzy atmosphere the author of the 
theory of relativity decided to use the idea of gravitational waves as 
the most reasonable one. But in reality, this idea only emphasised 
and aggravated unfoundedness of Einstein's conceptual arsenal. 

In fact, a strange and absolutely useless duality takes place. If a 
curved four-dimensional space-time is an objective reality destined 
to guarantee universal gravitation, then what shall we do with 
gravitational waves? On the other hand, if gravitational waves is an 
objective reality, then what shall we do with the curved four-
dimensional space-time? This tricky duality when describing the 
nature of the gravitational field, serves a true signal of troubles 
existing in our imagination of universal gravitation origin. 

Such an ambiguous interpretation of the gravitational interaction 
origin is caused by a deficit of a reliable conceptual basis the author 
of the relativistic theory used when applying to pseudo-Riemann 
geometry. What are real tools that make the four-dimensional space-
time be curved? It is beyond our comprehension. Hence, till now we 
don't understand the origin of the metric tensor in equations of the 
general theory of relativity. 



We must note that the theory of relativity itself owes gravitational 
waves absolutely nothing. It perfectly functions even without their 
existence. The problem is that a fundamental physical idea cannot be 
perfect without a reliable conceptual basis. Thus, beyond the words 
'curved four-dimensional space-time' a really existing physical 
factor (and not a simple mathematical manifold) must stand. In fact, 
how is it possible to seriously speak about a curved void? Lack of a 
comprehensive semantic equivalent for a curved space-time triggered 
the author of the relativistic theory to look for additional conceptual 
means capable to compensate functional insufficiency of its 
theoretical arsenal. Einstein imagined that gravitational waves, 
whose unsuccessful searches continue till nowadays, might be such 
an additional instrument. 

It seems that Albert Einstein, who declared curved space-time as a 
physical reality, was astonished by this discovery and being 
somewhat disappointed, urgently began to invent gravitational waves 
with the aim to maintain traditional 'electromagnetic' distinction for 
his general theory of relativity. But an appeal to gravitational waves 
is a direct rollback to Lorentz's standards in definition of conceptual 
status of the category of 'space'. 

Lorentz considered that there was an empty space capable to 
function as a carrier of the electromagnetic field between material 
particles, which were carriers of electric charges. Electromagnetic 
field could be present or not in the empty space, but such an empty 
space itself always exists. It may be filled with electromagnetic field 
or emptied, in full compliance with Kant's definition of absolute and 
relative space. The only difference is that relative space was called a 
field. The same syndrome of a double standard is well seen in the 
idea of gravitational waves existence. This idea provides for 
existence of heavy masses � carriers of gravitational charges and an 
expanded empty space where gravitational waves emitted by these 
charges can propagate. In any case, the hypothesis of gravitational 
waves existence expressly parodies the electromagnetic theory where 
two spaces, absolute and relative, exist. 

By the way, the behaviour of a pendulum in Foucault's 
experiment totally discredits the idea of existence of gravitational 
waves similar to electromagnetic waves. We know that when a 



source of electromagnetic field rotates about its axis, emitted force 
field rotates together with the mass generating it. Then the 
gravitational field of the Earth must rotate together with the mass of 
the planet, like electromagnetic field does it. However, the behaviour 
of Foucault's pendulum proves the contrary. The experiments show 
that the Earth really rotates about its axis, but it doesn't result in 
gravitational field rotation. Should the gravitational field rotate 
together with the mass of the Earth, the trajectory of Foucault's 
pendulum oscillations shall be invariable relative to the surface of the 
planet. Then it follows that the nature of the gravitational field has 
nothing in common with the nature of the electromagnetic field. 

Hence, we see that the Achilles heel of the theory of relativity is 
conceptual insufficiency of its space-time arguments. These principle 
categories of the Universe look too abstract and somewhat isolated 
from real physical conceptions. In addition, the situation with 
declared one-dimensionality of the expression ()2ct , which is the 
main link in the relativistic equations of motion, looks rather 
problematic. 

It would be incorrect to think that the present theoretical 
investigation, which stands for the Bible version of the creation of 
the world, is aimed at substitution or abolition of the relativistic 
theory. The main line of the exposition is the deepening of the 
relativistic theory of motion, exclusively. But we shall not 
complicate it with mathematical solutions, when one seeks for 
sophisticated geometries leading to more complicated coordinate 
systems. This process, in fact, is endless. If there is a will, we can 
always find a desirable trajectory of motion which doesn't match 
with the known coordinate systems, and then new space-time 
manifolds appear. The effective prospect for the development of the 
theory of relativity, in our opinion, is related to its principal equation 
(3.1). 

Anticipating things, we can say that we consider the famous 
equation by Hermann Minkowski in a signature which allows to 
represent the basic member of this equality, we mean ()2ct, as a 
three-dimensional function which agrees with the dimension of this 
expression. It contradicts the traditional and, in our opinion, 



inadmissible identification of metric structure ()2ct with only one 
coordinate axis. We shall do it in non-traditional way, when they 
propose to complicate the space-time geometry of the relativistic 
theory in a signature ()N+4, here 4 stands for four-dimensional 
coordinate system of the theory of relativity, and N corresponds to 
additional coordinate dimensions. We shall link equation (3.1) to an 
effective and analytically controllable signature which agrees with 
the dimensions of all members-arguments written in this equality. It 
allows introducing quantum regularities into the theory of relativity, 
and drastic expanding of its cognitive possibilities. 

Beginning to expound this quantum-relativistic theory of relative 
motion we shall follow the historical context of modern ideas about 
mechanics of motion. Thus, let us start with the analysis of 
experimental results on the ether wind detection. It seems to us that 
the unconditional conclusion based on the results of these 
experiments consists in the indication that the circumterrestrial space 
belongs to the observed material substance. If the space directly takes 
part in experiments and is subject to registration procedure (light 
postulates prove it), then, by definition, such a space is material. It 
acts as a controlled physical reality along with material objects of 
substance. We adhere to the undeniable persuasion that observability, 
in fact, means materiality. 

As the space proves to be a material medium, a problem to 
identify the character of interrelations between such a space and 
substance arises. These relations must obviously differ from 
Democritus presence of substance in void. For example, we must 
know to distinguish between substance and space. We must know to 
differentiate these material formations. In the previous chapter we 
demonstrated the expected character of interactions between the 
space and substance taking a closed physical system 'water � ice' as 
an example. Then it is necessary to construct an absolutely specific 
mechanics of motion that allows the two material categories to 
effectively and consistently interact in the process of motion. There 
are two different concerns: when objects of substance displace in an 
empty Democritus space and when the motion takes place in a 
material medium. Any motion of inertial interpretation, when a direct 



substance transfer from one zone of the space to another is observed, 
faces certain difficulties in a new situation. Then quality of a total set 
of physical regularities governing the life of the Universe must be 
adjusted in accordance with conditions of interactions between 
material space and substance. 

It was already said that according to accepted principal statement 
for material attribution of fundamental categories of the Universe the 
interrelations between space and substance are well illustrated by the 
physical system 'water � ice'. Water, as well as ice, as to its material 
content, is a set of a very big number of ordinary molecules, H2O. 
Only the difference of temperature-energy levels between molecules 
of water allows us to draw a distinguished boundary separating these 
two types of material formations. 

Drawing an analogy between the 'space' and 'substance' it is 
natural to assume that the fact of existence of elementary particles of 
substance in the cosmic space is caused by variation of energy levels 
for matter which belongs to the check micro-particle, and matrix 
matter of space. If we liberate the particle of substance from the 
energy , the matter which belongs to the elementary particle 
appears on the same energy level as a matrix matter of space. A 
micro-particle seems to transform into the spacious matter, like 
melted ice transforms into water. 
2mcE=

Going back to the ice sphere immersed in water, we must say that 
the isolated physical system 'water � ice' belongs to the class of 
non-stable systems. The thing is that within certain time the ice 
sphere melts (we assume that water mass is big enough and its 
temperature is high). Ice transformation into water is followed by 
entropy increase, the closed system 'water � ice' tends to its state of 
equilibrium when the further energy exchange becomes impossible. 

Then the closed physical system 'space � micro-particle' must be 
unstable. Elementary particle must dissipate energy which causes its 
existence in the matrix matter of space. It also expresses the tendency 
of the isolated physical system 'space � micro-particle' to reach the 
state of equilibrium when any energy exchange is prohibited. 
Dissipation of proper energy of the elementary particle in matrix 
matter of space is realized through expansion of this micro-particle in 
any direction from its centre. Elementary particle seems to grow like 



a sphere which is uniformly blown. It tends to 'dilute' and occupy 
the same energy level of the matrix matter of space. 

In accordance with Newton's laws, two mass points interact with 
forces which are numerically equal and directed in opposite 
directions. In such a case, if an elementary particle expands at certain 
speed in any direction from its centre, the material space starts to 
displace at the same speed in the direction towards the centre of the 
micro-particle. The particle tends to dissipate in the space, but the 
reverse displacement of the matrix matter compensates this 
dissipation and controls the object in a stable state. 

Therefore, we are witnesses of the situation when elementary 
particles of substance are present in the cosmic space of the Universe 
like astrophysical black holes � they absorb the surrounding material 
space. It is natural that any massive body consisting of a big number 
and variety of elementary particles, due to the fact of its existence in 
the space of the Universe, absorbs the matrix mater of the space. In 
this context all massive bodies operate like black holes in the space 
of the Universe, they continuously absorb the surrounding material 
space. 

Cosmological red shift of spectral lines of light signal emitted by 
remote galaxies is a convincing proof of matrix matter absorption by 
massive objects of substance. If all the massive bodies in the 
Universe absorb surrounding material space, its continuous extension 
must take place. Then the distance between two check points of the 
space must continuously increase. The greater the distance between 
two points selected for our observations, the greater the speed at 
which these points move away from each other. As a result, though 
our galaxy and remote galaxies maintain relative state of rest, light 
signals reaching us from distant cosmic objects pass through 
continuously extending material space. It is this process of space 
extension due to its absorption by massive material objects that 
results in effect of cosmological shift of spectral lines from distant 
galaxies. 

Speed of a check point of space moving into the zone of the mass 
of the object under investigation due to matrix matter absorption, is 
determined by well-known Newton's expression: 

 



 

2""
RMvD.= (3.2) 

 

But we must note that the dimension of the Newtonian 
gravitational constant is / m3, kg-1, sec-2 / , while the dimension of 
'D' constant in equation (3.2) is / m3, kg-1, sec-1 /. 

To give proof of equality (3.2) let us show the logics of its 
derivation without using Newtonian constant. 

The energy of dissipation of any elementary particle possessing 
rest mass and tending to dissipate in matrix space, has constant value 
and is quantized: 

 

htEp=. (3.3) 

 

here is the energy, the elementary particle dissipates within 
one second; 
tE.hp is the product of 'pi' number by Planck's constant. 

Let us write (3.3) as 

 

htmcvp=. (3.4) 

 

Here m is the rest mass of the reference micro-particle; c is the 
light speed in vacuum; v is the speed of the particle expansion in the 
space. On the other hand, v is the speed of matrix matter which enters 
the zone of classical radius of the observed micro-particle and keeps 
it in a stable state; t. equals one second. 

From (3.4) we find v: 

 

tmchv.=
p 
(3.5) 

 

To determine the speed the matrix space enters the zone of the 
material object, which possesses a considerable mass and consists of 
a big number and variety of elementary particles, we must substitute 
the proportionality ratio into the right side of equation (3.5). This is 



the ratio of mass and radius squared of the investigated object (M, 
R2) and mass and classical radius squared of any elementary particle 
(m, r2). Assume that a particle is an electron. Then: 

 

222tRcmMhrv.=
p 
(3.6) 

 

If we eliminate all constant values from the right side of equation 
(3.6), then we get the value of the Newtonian gravitational constant 
'D' prime. 

 

tcmhrD.=22""p. (3.7) 

 

Simplifying (3.6) we get the expression similar to (3.2): 

 

2""
222RMtRcmMhrvD.p=
.= (3.8) 

 

It is needed to make a special note concerning the use of classical 
radius of the elementary particle in the equations. The classical 
radius of an electron in these solutions isn't a physical quantity 
which characterizes its absolute size. Nobody identifies the radius of 
the Earth as an absolute volume occupied by planet substance in the 
cosmic space. The substance constituting the mass of the planet, may 
be concentrated in a more or less compact form depending on 
particular conditions. The density may vary from that of a neutron 
star to gas cloud. The radius of the observed cosmic object subject to 
registration also varies in the same wide range. We use classical 
radius for the electron, and believe that its value, in accordance with 
scale invariance, is compatible with the scale level of quantities 
written in equation (3.6) and satisfies their solution. 

In reality, elementary particles (electron among them) may have 
complicated internal structure at a quark or even finer level. But by 
no means has it influenced the actuality of our solutions. The 



proposed mathematical apparatus describes displacement of the 
check point of matrix matter of space beyond the classical radius of 
investigated objects. 

We must note that the given equations allow overcoming classical 
boundaries and penetrating into finer structures. For instance, it is 
possible to determine so called 'classical radius' of elementary 
particles of substance. Speaking about critical radius we mean the 
value, when matrix matter of space penetrates into the zone of 
investigated elementary particle at a speed of light. Taking into 
account the fundamental significance of this speed, we can 
reasonably assume that the real frontal opposition between the micro-
particle tendency to dissipate, on the one hand, and return motion of 
the matrix space, on the other hand, exists exactly on the level of the 
critical radius of elementary particles. In some respect the critical 
radius of the elementary particle is an absolute quantity. In none case 
its value may be less than this limit. One can calculate the critical 
radius from equation (3.5). 

To do it we substitute light speed, c, for v in the left side of 
equation (3.5). In the right side we write the ratio of the square of 
classical radius, r2, and the square of critical radius, . Then (3.5) 
may be written as: 
2.crr

 

2.22crtrcmhrc.=
p. (3.9) 

 

From (3.9) we get , .crr

 

tcmhrrcr.=222.
p. (3.10) 

 

We believe that the critical radius of elementary particles of a 
substance plays an important restricting role for our capacity to 
penetrate into the depth of the micro-world. This radius outlines the 
micro-horizon of events, and the physical reality existing beyond it is 



always hidden for our observations. We loose, one can say, any 
possibility to get any information about the events which take place 
beyond this horizon. The thing is that the speed of matrix matter 
intrusion into the limits of a micro-particle completely neutralizes the 
speed of information propagation from the profoundness of the 
reference particle of substance. The similar things, but having the 
scale of the macro-cosmos, take place with the expanding Universe. 
When the speed of the Universe expansion reaches and overcomes 
light threshold, we become completely isolated from the information 
originating from remote galaxies. In this case opposite extremes link 
together, as it often happens. 

As all massive material objects of substance are present in the 
space of the Universe as consumers of matrix matter, we get a unique 
possibility to create a very dynamic mechanism of the Universe 
functioning, which ensures continuous self-renewing of the Universe. 
It this favourable cosmological conditions the possibility of existence 
of any fixed forms of material constructions, specified once and for 
all, is completely excluded. We refer to a very broad range of such 
constructions, from the simplest elementary particles of substance to 
combined galactic configurations. In essence, we find ourselves in a 
qualitatively different world, which is more natural and dynamic than 
that which corresponds to the Big Bang statements. But the most 
important thing is that in these conditions of qualitatively renewed 
ideas about the physical status of the fundamental categories of the 
Universe, we get good prerequisites to update our understanding of 
mechanics of motion. We get the opportunity to find more dynamic 
theoretical grounds for relative motion, with sound mathematical and 
conceptual contents. 

So, we consider that the presence of material objects in the space 
of the Universe is caused by spread of energy levels between the 
matter which belongs to these objects, and matrix matter of the space. 
In its turn, this energy levels spread is followed by absorption of the 
material space by masses of substance. The interpretation of the 
infinite space as an absolute material medium results in putting a 
question about motion relative to this absolute space, which seems to 
be able to function as a universal frame of reference. Let's analyze 
this issue with more details. 



While imposing the function of universal frame of reference on an 
absolute material space one must not miss the following 
circumstance. The matrix space itself, being a homogeneous and 
continuous medium, in principal, cannot operate as a universal frame 
of reference. The latter assumes the existence of reference marks, all 
the measurements and observations be made relatively to. The 
acceptance of any reference mark in the real space is realized through 
assignment of a certain physical meaning to it. This is the only way 
to mark such a point out of a material medium. In such a case we 
must consider the selected point rather as an independent material 
object than as an element of the absolute space. Then all the 
measurements made with respect to the selected point have actual 
value relative to this point as an independent objective reality, but 
not with respect to the absolute space. 

Prior to considering the motion relative to the absolute space, we 
must mention the marking procedure, which allows us to select 
reference points in this space and perform all possible measurements 
with respect to them. At the same time the marking procedure must 
maintain the state of the zero normal of matrix matter, or, in other 
words, it must not destruct the state of space continuity and 
homogeneity. It is obvious that these requirements are unrealizable in 
principle. Thus, all the discussions about the absolute motion with 
respect to infinite space taken as a universal frame of reference seem 
to be meaningless. 

However, let us try to analyze the circumstances which allow the 
material space to acquire all necessary features to function as a valid 
frame of reference where light postulates are true, as a physical 
system, whose material structure is able to acquire the state of wave 
disturbance and operate as hypothetic luminiferous ether. 

It is known that the principal prerequisite to wave disturbance 
propagation is the existence of a certain stable system or medium 
carrying any regulated stable state in its structural memory. If we 
disturb such a system or medium from its position of equilibrium 
though impulse disturbance, it starts to harmonically oscillate tending 
to return to its initial stable state. 

It was mentioned earlier that the matrix material space isn't that 
physical system or medium, whose structural memory keeps any 



regulated stable bonds. It is absolutely homogeneous medium 
without any marks, and because of the unavailability of stable 
structural bonds there is nothing to become in the state of wave 
disturbance. For this reason any idea of imposing functions of the 
luminiferous ether on the matrix space cannot be seriously 
considered. However, the question of how the light wave signals 
propagate near the Earth surface and what is the part of the matrix 
material space in this propagation, is still open. 

Is we solve equation (3.2) substituting the values for M and R2 
which correspond to the Earth, then we find that the matrix matter of 
the space flows into the limits of the Earth classical radius at a speed 
of approximately 9.8 m/sec. In fact, it means that all the infinite 
space of the Universe is oriented towards the centre of the Earth and 
is stable with respect to it, according to equation (3.2). 

The displacement of matrix matter towards the centre of the Earth 
imparts objective qualities of physical reality to the space, the reality 
possessing internal metric consistency. Each point of this regulated 
structure acquires a specific dynamic load. If we disturb such a 
dynamically consistent space from the given regulated position by 
light impulse, its metric background becomes disturbed and as a 
result, the space has to acquire the state of wave disturbance. The 
similar things are observed when a stone is thrown into the calm 
water and then wave disturbances are generated on its free surface. 
Therefore, we have all grounds to consider absolute space rushing 
towards the centre of the Earth as really marked medium capable to 
carry electromagnetic information and perform its duties of the 
luminiferous ether. 

All the aforesaid allow us to formulate a principally important 
generalization: as the Earth absorbs the matrix matter of the absolute 
space of the Universe, then so called 'personal space-time 
continuum' (PS-TC) must be formed. A unique important physical 
property of the terrestrial PS-TC is its capacity to acquire the state of 
wave disturbance and carry electromagnetic energy at a constant 
speed, which has the same value in any direction. When we say that 
the speed of light near the surface of the Earth equals 300,000 km/sec, 
we must keep in mind that we speak about the speed of light waves 
propagation as on the luminiferous normal level of the Earth personal 



space-time continuum. The latter was successfully detected in the 
experiments performed by Michelson and Morley, which proved the 
circumterrestrial space capacity to perform luminiferous function. 

In contrast to the author of the theory of relativity, we do not 
simply declare light postulates, but try to assign full motivation to the 
law of light speed constancy for any coordinate system related to any 
chosen body of reference. The important advantage of the proposed 
theoretical choice is its tendency to consider the categories of 
'space' and 'substance' in continuous relationship with each other. 
We mean not only the close interaction between the personal space-
time continuum and substance, but principal impossibility of their 
independent existence as well. While according to Einstein, such a 
real interdependence between space and substance doesn't actually 
exist. Hence, reliable prerequisites to unite the theory of relativity 
with quantum regularities aren't available. 

Unlike Einstein's four-dimensional space-time, the personal 
space-time continuum isn't an abstract mathematical construction 
which doubtfully includes light postulates, but objectively existing 
physical reality, whose properties we can easily understand and 
discover basing on the experiments done by Michelson and Morley. 
But the most important thing is that this reality can be reasonably 
understood. We can perceive that the terrestrial personal space-time 
continuum may be used as a valid space-time framework and it is 
reasonable to perform different measurements and observations 
against its background or, if we want to be more exact, on the 
luminiferous normal level. 

If we project a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system on 
a terrestrial PS-TC in such a way that the origin of the terrestrial 
personal continuum (centre of mass of the Earth) coincides with the 
point of intersection of three coordinate axes, then the four-
dimensional nature of this objective physical reality becomes 
imaginable. Three spacious and one time dimensions organically 
interlace in the personal continuum due to matrix matter sliding 
along the spacious coordinates axes. The motion is that unique state 
when space and time become inseparably linked with each other. As 
we see, to illustrate four-dimensional space-time we don't need to 
refer to any puzzling combinations seeming to be independent of our 



imagination. It is needed to possess clear idea of the object of 
investigations and be guided by the sole desire to understand its real 
physical essence. 

It is obvious that not only the Earth, but any massive body 
possesses its personal space-time continuum in the absolute space of 
the Universe. If we have a system of two or more massive bodies, 
any PS-TC may be successfully used as a universal space-time 
framework, and it looks reasonable to perform various measurements 
and observations against its background. In this aspect all the 
personal space-time continuums are equivalent, and there is no 
privileged frame of reference. However, in each specific case of 
choosing the frame of reference, the decision word is that of the 
observer. It is location of the observer that determines the choice of a 
personal space-time, when the global picture of the Universe 
becomes clear on the luminiferous normal level. 

For example, for us who live on the Earth any information about 
the events taking place in the surrounding cosmic infinity, comes and 
manifests itself on the luminiferous normal level of the terrestrial 
personal space-time. This circumstance causes the personal targeted 
orientation of the global picture of the Universe registered by the 
observer on the Earth. In particular, we must clearly imagine that the 
centre of mass of the planet, being the original point of the terrestrial 
PS-TC, regularly seems to be the centre of the Universe for the 
observer on the Earth. It is only an intellectual way which leads to 
understanding of how the Earth rotates about the Sun. It is 
impossible to register this motion by performing experiments on the 
Earth, and the results of observations made by Michelson and Morley 
prove it. Hence, our forefathers haven't sinned against the truth 
believing that the world exists as we see it and the Earth is the centre 
of the Universe. The Earth together with its personal space-time 
continuum is the only and firm universal framework for us, and we 
register any event taking place in the Universe against its background. 

It's just the right time now to think of the Holy Scripture and 
address the Prophet Moses. It is written in the First Book, called 
Genesis, that the first day of creative and foundational acts of the 
Divine Universe, Heavens, Earth and light were created. There are 
the words 'one day' at the end of the verses dedicated to the first day 



of the creation of the world. It is known that in the original text 
written in Hebrew, the words 'one day' have rather quantitative than 
ordinal number interpretation. For this reason all declarations with 
respect to the first day of the Great Creation must be understood as 
an inseparable creative and forming act. It is incorrect to use our 
common chronometry of 24 hours of day and night. Nothing is said 
in the Bible whether the first day of creation was long or not. But it is 
important to understand that everything occurred that day must be 
interpreted as a combined one-act action, and the independent 
appearance of Heavens, Earth or light in isolation from each other 
isn't acceptable. 

The onset of light on the first day of the creation of the world was 
criticized more than once; it cast doubt on the Divine Providence 
logics. According to Moses' narration the creation of the heavenly 
bodies occurred on the fourth day of creation, it is directly indicated 
in the verses dedicated to the fourth day. Than an inevitable question 
arises: what is the day the Holy Scripture speaks about, if on the first 
day of the creation of the world there were no heavenly bodies? To 
suspect the Prophet Moses of light-mindedness would be too na�ve 
business. 

In accordance with the logics of this theoretical research we can 
assume that, narrating the creation of the Heaven, the Earth and light 
on the first day, the Prophet declares the one-time-only creation of 
the Earth, its personal space-time continuum with its capacity to 
carry luminiferous information. The existence of the terrestrial PS-
TC in the absolute space of the Universe, and its capacity to operate 
as a luminiferous medium is impossible without the existence of the 
Earth mass. Just as the existence of the Earth is also impossible 
without its personal space-time continuum together with light 
postulates. These three physical categories are organically 
interdependent. None of them assumes its autonomous existence in 
the Universe, and the Prophet Moses knew it. The Bible tells us that 
God separated the light from the darkness. In other words, He created 
the luminiferous space-time medium of the matrix matter of the 
absolute space (which is darkness, because it isn't capable to carry 
electromagnetic information). Should the Earth be created without its 
personal space-time continuum, it shall not be able to give or receive 



any information. In such a case it would be isolated from the outer 
world, being relegated to oblivion. 

It would seem how could Moses know these subtleties of the 
Universe operating? However, this is the great mystery and exclusive 
God-inspiration of the Holy Scripture. By God's grace, the prophets 
knew those innermost depths of the being that we try to find out by 
grains at the cost of incredible efforts. The ability to perceive the 
Earth and its luminiferous space-time medium as an inseparable 
physical system was one of those mysteries within the power of the 
prophets. Besides, the prophets knew that the appearance of such a 
physical system in the matrix space of the Universe occurred at the 
one-time-only principle; it is this idea that is proved by the statement 
of the 'one day'. 

However, Moses wasn't alone to narrate mysteries of light mains 
laying in the Holy Scripture! Let's think of the Book of Job, in 
particular, its 38th chapter, when the Most High examines Job's 
knowledge of the innermost mainsprings regulating the life of the 
Universe. In the 19th verse God asks Job: 'Where is the way where 
light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof?' And 
then in the 24th verse He asks: 'By what way is the light parted, 
which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?' 

Let us analyze the question 'By what way is the light parted?' 
Isn't it the principal idea of Einstein's light postulates making the 
most inconceivable aspect of the theory of relativity? One thing is to 
declare that the speed of light is the same in any coordinate system 
and possesses the same value in different directions at any zone of 
the coordinate system. But the other thing is to know to suggest 
physical grounds for such a declaration. Einstein in his relativistic 
theory doesn't even endeavour to answer questions resulting from the 
light postulates, though his world vision is based on the declaration 
that the light speed is absolute. 

The factor of light speed constancy (firstly, in inertial frames of 
reference only) plays a key part in the theory of relativity and serves 
as its physical grounding. We don't have any doubt that the success 
of the electromagnetic theory by Maxwell and Lorentz inspired faith 
in Einstein that the statement of the constant speed of light in the 
space was true. The experiments on the ether wind discovery 



redoubled his conviction. Einstein's merit was to apply the law of 
light speed constancy to all inertial frames of reference as a principle. 

Prior to appearance of the theory of relativity it was known that 
Maxwell's equations, thus, the law of the constancy of the velocity of 
light in vacuum is invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations. 
This fact allowed Einstein to come to a conclusion that a transition 
from one inertial frame of reference to another must take place 
according to Lorentz transformations applied to thee space 
coordinates � X1, X2, X3, and one time coordinate � X4. 

Then, basing on the obvious requirement that the laws of physics 
must be the same in all inertial systems of coordinates, Einstein 
found necessary to declare that all physical equations, which reflect 
the general laws of nature, were invariant with respect to Lorentz 
transformations. Hence, the essence of the special theory of relativity 
may be formulated in one phrase: all physical laws and equations 
which result from them must be expressed in a way which implies 
their covariance with respect to Lorentz transformations. 

Later, Einstein decided to expand the idea of light speed 
constancy over any coordinate systems, including those moving with 
acceleration. It meant that according to the fundamental principle of 
equivalency, the idea of considering equivalent inertial systems only 
was unreasonable. We must agree that non-linear transformations of 
X1, X2, X3, X4 coordinates are also considered equivalent. If we make 
such a transformation of rectilinear coordinates of the special theory 
of relativity, then metric becomes Riemannian. Einstein selected 
such a special group of continuous transformations of coordinate 
functioning as Lorentz transformations in special theory of relativity, 
which could assure relative covariance of fundamental equations of 
physics when passing from one accelerated coordinate system to 
another. 

It made possible to generalize the idea about unavailability of any 
physically preferential state of motion in nature. Hence, there are no 
preferential frames of reference, and equations of physics must be 
covariant with respect to any point transformations of the four-
dimensional space-time continuum. The author of the theory of 
relativity makes this statement the fundamental principle of 



covariance, serving as a unique possible solid foundation to construct 
the physical science structure over. 

It goes without saying that the general principle of relativity, 
stating that the laws of physics must be covariant with respect to any 
transformation of a coordinate system, is a true and limiting principle. 
Possibly it is similar to that principle lying as basis for 
thermodynamics which impedes perpetuum mobile operating. This 
general principle of relativity requires all physical laws of nature be 
invariant for observers in any coordinate system. One can think that 
the principle of general covariance exists independently of the theory 
of relativity, because it is caused by the nature of matters itself. 
However, a great and crucially important question arises: whether 
Einstein's equations contain real limitations for physical laws or they 
are purely mathematical combinations working for themselves. 

It is known that any physical law which is true for any coordinate 
system may be reformulated in such a way that its new expression 
has a general covariant form. Always there are a big number of field 
equations which accept such a general covariant formulation. Of 
course, the theory of relativity proposes solutions which seem to be 
simple enough, though they are general covariant. But this advantage 
itself cannot guarantee adequacy of Einstein's systems of equations. 
In this situation we formulate the principle question: what physical 
properties of space and time are taken as fundamental basis which 
makes possible to establish the general covariance of physical laws 
while passing from one coordinate system to another? And then it is 
natural to put another question: what must be the mathematical 
character of the equations which meet requirements of fundamental 
physical properties of space and time? Or, using other words, the 
only firm guarantee for the complete compliance of equations of the 
theory of relativity with objective reality is the clear presentation of 
physical processes behind their mathematical representation. 
Eventually, real life in the Universe is the interaction of physical 
regularities exclusively, not mathematical ones. 

In this context, the theory of relativity is extremely restrained, 
because it never proposes anything else but light postulates which 
express real physical properties of the four-dimensional space-time 
and ensure general covariance of Einstein's equations. The 



declaration of light speed constancy and identity in any coordinate 
system is a pure declaration only. Such a declaration cannot satisfy 
our natural desire to perceive its real physical substantiveness. 
Moreover, we cannot accept light postulates as an absolutely true 
idea. They have never been verified, and have absolutely empiric 
nature. Nobody has ever tried to measure speed of light in any 
coordinate system. One cannot guarantee that the light speed on the 
surface of the Moon equals the light speed on the surface of the Mars. 
That's why light postulates in their general application are, in fact, 
wishful thinking. 

In general, one can speak about constancy of light speed more or 
less definitely in inertial frame of reference only, in the absence of 
gravitational fields. In this case the complete geodesic coincidence of 
light signal path exists and it becomes possible to compare the two 
trajectories superimposing them. The other way is to compare these 
trajectories with any rigid model. Such a procedure faces certain 
difficulties in accelerated frames of reference. In this case we cannot 
interpret coordinate axes using rigid self-congruent standards and 
isochoric clock. Hence, the task to compare light signal trajectories 
as well as their velocities while passing from one frame of reference 
to another becomes rather problematic or even impossible. 

And even if, in reality, the speed of light is constant and has the 
same numerical value for any coordinate system, we need to know 
why it happens. We must know to answer the question put to Job by 
the Almighty in the Old Testament: 'Where is the way where light 
dwelleth?' Without answering this very important and complicated 
question the real physical value of the theory of relativity seems 
rather relative. 

It isn't a secret for anybody that certain assumptions lie in the 
depth of the fundamental science, and sometimes they don't result 
from the experiment. Strong evidence is the assumption of constancy 
and equality of light speed for all coordinate systems. It happens 
because we never can comprehend the physical picture of the world 
around us. And within our cognition, assumptions which make more 
or less logically completed theoretical system of scientific ideas 
about the world around us appear. In these circumstances the 
question is how deeply and haw widely do these assumptions 



embrace a range of multiform natural phenomena? An assumption is 
acceptable till the moment when new experimental and theoretical 
results allow formulating more general assumption which includes 
the previous as a particular case with restricted applicability. 

We believe that the results of experiments on the ether wind 
discovery served as experimental basis for light postulates 
acceptation. However, the idea of constancy and equality of the 
speed of light for any coordinate system doesn't obligatory result 
from the experiments performed by Michelson and Morley. We have 
already mentioned that the single reliable conclusion which directly 
results from these experiments is that speed of light in the personal 
space-time continuum of the Earth equals 300,000 km/sec. But the 
constancy of light speed in the PS-TC of the Earth doesn't imply free 
extrapolation of this constant over all other space-time continuums. 
Moreover, we have every reason to believe that this numerical value 
of the speed of light, 300,000 km/sec, is applicable to the personal 
space-time continuum of the Earth only. It characterizes physical 
properties of the personal space-time continuum just of the Earth. 

Thus, if we consider a local terrestrial gravitational field as a 
uniformly accelerated frame of reference, according to equivalence 
principle, then we can reason as follows. Acceleration is the rate of 
change of velocity of a check body with respect to an external frame 
of reference or initial conditions of the experiment. The thing is that 
acceleration may be registered irrespectively to any external 
reference points. Besides, it is known that, according to the 
equivalence principle, an isolated observer cannot distinguish 
between acceleration and the presence of the gravitational field. In 
such a case a classical observer isolated in the terrestrial gravitational 
field (let him be closed in an empty lift) at any moment of time may 
switch on his measuring devices and determine his state as a 
continuous increase in his velocity with respect to initial conditions 
of the experiment with the acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2. There is no 
contradiction in this experiment because the principle of equivalency 
allows the observer isolated in the terrestrial gravitational field, to 
consider his own state as uniformly accelerated motion with 
acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2. It happens though the observer is in state 
of rest relative to the surface of the Earth. 



And now a question arises: how long can an isolated observer 
register his acceleration if it follows from the theory of relativity that 
nothing can move faster than at light speed? Earlier or later the 
classical observer, grounding on readings of his devices must register 
that he reaches and exceeds the speed of light respective to initial 
conditions of the experiment. 

In this connection let us clarify what is the interval of time needed 
for the classical observer to register the fact that he reaches the speed 
of light. The value we get equals the lunar Islamic calendar year: 

 

gct=. (3.11) 

 

Here t is the interval of time which contains twelve lunar or 
synodic months (every synodic month lasts 29 days, 12 hours, 44 
minutes and 2.9 seconds); c is the speed of light in vacuum; g is the 
acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth. 

It is known that the Islamic year is based on the lunar cycle and 
corresponds to the interval of time the Moon needs to return to its 
initial position. If an observer synchronizes the beginning of the 
experiment with the position of the Moon on the vault of heaven, 
then when his speed reaches the speed of light he finds that the Moon 
has returned to its previous place. The situation is similar to that of a 
traveller trying to reach the end of the Earth. 

The Moon is a natural satellite of the Earth and its trajectory 
essentially depends on the intensity of the terrestrial gravitational 
field. The fact that the observer isolated in the terrestrial gravitational 
field, according to the equivalence principle reaches (to a high 
accuracy) the speed of light in a lunar calendar year is hardly 
occasional. This circumstance indicates the existence of still 
unknown deep interrelation between the space-time topology of the 
terrestrial gravitational field and characteristic of velocity of light 
signal in it. It is probable that the numerical value of light in vacuum, 
300,000 km/sec, isn't an absolute and universal value for the whole 
Universe. It is possible that this value reflects personal metric 



properties of the terrestrial PS-TC only, and is actual exclusively for 
terrestrial gravitational field. 

It stands to reason that this assumption needs a serious study; 
however it is critically important for us to know to explain the origin 
of equation (3.11). This equality is too exact and convincing to be a 
simple coincidence of chances. And the most important thing is that 
according to Einstein, physical properties of the four-dimensional 
space-time are stipulated by light postulates in their traditional 
statement, but the reality may be absolutely different. It is not ruled 
out that the registered speed of light in vacuum is, in fact, the 
expression of a metric structure of a specific gravitational field, or 
specific accelerated frame of reference. Because it follows from 
(3.11) that 

 

gtc�=. (3.12) 

 

The uniqueness of this equality consists in the fact that it allows to 
prove the known value of the speed of light in vacuum with the help 
of gravitational potential of the terrestrial personal space-time. 

It may happen that we have to deny Einstein's light postulates in 
their general categorical statement. Then a new theory of relativity 
will be created, and in this theory the general covariance of principal 
equations of physics will be true due to the change in the velocity of 
light in different coordinate systems and not to its constancy. In any 
case, the problem of the velocity of light as a basic element of the 
theory of relativity, needs great attention. 

There is nothing else left for us to do but construct our world-view 
on the basis of Eisntein's light postulates. Especially as the terrestrial 
space-time continuum in full measure meets all there requirements 
and allows us to comprehensively describe the general picture of the 
world around us. 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUANTA OF MOTION 

The theory of relativity is mainly intended to comprehensively 
illustrate results of different types of motion. We know that a man 
lives in the continuously changing world, in the world of 
kaleidoscopic displacement of various material objects with respect 
to each other. To reduce the dynamical picture of the world around 
us into a certain coordinated state we need to freely and adequately 
know to describe motion and orient in it. For this purpose the theory 
of relativity uses four-dimensional coordinate grids with three space 
and one time dimension. Four-dimensional coordinate systems 
operate like world space-time framework in it, and process of motion 
is realized against its background. 

Einstein was the first to realize that time propagates in space at a 
finite speed, which is the speed of electromagnetic field expansion in 
Maxwell � Lorentz equations. As time looses its absolute character 
because of its impossibility to cover space distances infinitely 
quickly, then the four-dimensional space-time perception of reality 
becomes the only possible thing. In special theory of relativity the 
linear four-dimensional coordinate systems are used. They meet 
requirements of the space-time geometry by Minkowski when 
Euclid's geometry axioms are true. In the general theory of relativity 
the curved coordinate axes are used, which result in appearance of a 
curved space-time with pseudo-Riemann metrics, which is contrary 
to Euclid's geometry. 



Location of a test body is called 'event' in physics; it is 
understood as a point argument and determined by a set of real 
numbers � projections of the check point on four coordinate axes. 
The theory of relativity tracks out the trajectory and determines the 
speed of a moving observed object in the space-time coordinate 
frame of reference with the help of the square of the interval, dS2, 
between two arbitrary close events, taking into account the way of its 
solution. 

When Einstein formulated the problem to find the trajectory of a 
test body in a free gravitational field, he assumed that, basing on the 
requirements of the principle of equivalence, the trajectory of the 
check body shall be fully determined by the geometry of the curved 
space-time and described through the solution of the interval dS2. 
Therefore, from the mathematical standpoint, Einstein's theory of 
relativity, in fact, is a theory of the differential space-time interval, 
dS2, solution. We can add to it, that the interval between two 
arbitrary close events is solved through the Pythagorean theorem, 
which states that in any right triangle the square of the hypotenuse 
equals the sum of squares of the remaining sides of the triangle. 

Speaking about the conceptual substantiveness of the theory of 
relativity we must recognize that it radically expands the limits of our 
ideas about the general picture of the external world due to revision 
of the physical status of the fundamental categories of the Universe. 
Einstein managed to deprive space and time of their casual 
absoluteness when they were the only factors affecting position of 
massive bodies, being unyielded themselves. The theory of relativity 
revealed the deep interrelation between massive bodies and metric 
structure of the surrounding space-time. However, it didn't put any 
conceptual equivalents concerning actual character of this 
interrelation or its actual physical content, at our disposal. 

The thing is that the use of mathematical four-dimensional 
coordinate grids, in itself, cannot clarify the nature of space and time 
unification in a single topological matter. And no coordinate systems 
can provide understanding of the principles of interrelation between 
four-dimensional space-time and masses of substance. On the 
contrary, the use of four-dimensional coordinated grids in the theory 
of relativity aggravated the situation. In accordance with the specifics 



of the conceptual contest of the theory of relativity, abstract 
mathematical manifold substituted for physical space-time reality. 
By the way, this mathematical manifold is isolated from the 
reasonable comprehension and till nowadays it doesn't have any 
physical attribution accessible to our imagination. We don't know 
what stands behind the four-dimensional space-time continuum of 
the theory of relativity and what the solution of the interval dS2 is. In 
such a case we cannot, with certainty, present this solution as a 
unique true and correct description of results of motion, which 
cannot be intentionally changed or cancelled. 

In fact, we don't know whether our mathematical constructions 
reflect the objective picture of the deep processes taking place on the 
mysterious infiniteness of the material world. Imaginary identity of 
physical reality and its mathematical equivalents is rather unstable, 
and the whole history of the development of natural science is its true 
witness. That's why it becomes very important for our mathematical 
computations not to burden vacillating conceptual theoretical basis of 
physics with additional contradictions. And in this sense, the theory 
of relativity has its fault. We can mark out at least three serious 
problems which cannot be logically understood, with respect to 
application of the interval dS2 and interpretation of its components � 
point ideas about the concept of the 'event', in the theory of 
relativity. 

Let us arrest our attention on these problems and carefully analyze 
each of them separately. 

It is considered that Einstein interpreted the unified theory of field 
developed by him as universal physical conception applied to any 
type of interaction (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational 
interaction). Such a vision is reasonable and we would like to see a 
new comprehensive theory explaining different kinds of interaction 
and possessing a reliable mathematical ground. But it was rather 
another idea that didn't give a moment's peace to Einstein and 
provoked his creative work. The main purpose of the author of the 
theory of relativity, who tried to demonstrate new solutions of 
equation of motion, consisted in his wish to exceed the limits of 
interpretation of dS2 as a measure of space-time relations and expand 



it over material objects of substance. Let us look into the essence of 
matter. 

In Figure 1 one can see two positions of a steel sphere moving 
along the X-axis, at two fixed instants of time. 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 1 

 

In the theory of relativity and in Newtonian mechanics as well, 
massive material objects are considered as mass points. Then the 
distance between two fixed locations of a steel sphere moving along 
the X-axis, is S � the interval between two points, O1 and O2. In 
classical mechanics this interval, S, is a mathematical measure of 
distance between points O1 and O2. Theoretically, it is quite 
acceptable and absolutely sufficient for Newtonian mechanics 
functioning. However, in the theory of relativity the situation differs. 
In this theory the distance between O1 and O2 is interpreted not as a 
conventional mathematical measure of distance but as a natural 
space-time interval with its real physical properties as a moving 
material object possesses them, which directly results from light 
postulates. 

In Figure 1 one can easily notice that, strictly speaking, the space-
time interval between two fixed locations of a steel sphere moving 
along the X-axis is the distance S1 and no more than that. Otherwise, 
is we consider S as a real space-time interval, we need to ground the 
fact of reduction of the mass of the steel sphere to its status of space-
time argument together with light postulates. Hence, the necessity to 



solve the problem of difference (S minus S1) arises. We must clarify 
the situation with this difference and attribute it either to substance or 
to space-time. The theory of relativity keeps silence with respect to 
this problem, though when interval S approaches the differential 
expression the problem becomes even more critical and unsolvable. 

If we consider the difference between O1 and O2 in the framework 
of differential calculus, then the interval dS2 is found inside the steel 
sphere. In this case it is not a measure of space and time, but a 
measure of distance between two points of substance, O1 and O2 (Fig. 
2). Then it would be reasonable to call the interval O1O2 a four-
dimensional 'material-space-time' argument. By the way, it isn't 
related to light postulates, because within the mass of a steel sphere it 
is really difficult to hold light postulates. 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2 

 

In Figure 2 we can clearly see that the interval between O1 and O2 
is a measure of distance between the points of substance. If we say 
that this interval is a space-time quantity, then we bereave substance 
of its quality of objective physical reality. On the other hand, if we 
expressly declare the interval between O1 and O2 as a measure of 
distance between two points of substance, then we must deny forever 
the possibility to consider this interval as a space-time argument. If 
doing it, the theory of relativity will be bereft of all its logical 
foundations, and it will become impossible to use it as a theory 
operating space-time relations. 



Einstein was aware of his theory applicability exclusively for 
point, hence, incorporeal ideas about material objects. For lengthy 
bodies the differential interval between two events looses its space-
time reality, but becomes a measure of distance between points of 
substance. In reality we live in the world of corporeal, lengthy bodies. 
Hence, an inevitable question arises: how can substance pass into 
space-time, and is such a transition possible? The theory of relativity 
keeps silence with this respect. Einstein didn't solve, let us say, the 
first problem of the interval dS2. It is related to the transition of 
substance into space-time or, vice versa, with the transition of space-
time into substance. 

The author of the theory of relativity hoped to solve this problem 
with the help of the unified theory of field. It was suggested that 
space-time and substance may function as derivatives of the unified 
universal field in this new universal theory of motion. It would allow 
us to naturally operate with the interval dS2 for categories of 
'substance' and 'space-time'. Einstein hoped to get this result 
basing on the unified theory of field. The thing is that without 
understanding of what does the interval dS2 characterize � the 
distance between two points of substance or two points of space-time, 
it was impossible to determine the grade of objectivity of the theory 
of relativity. And only later, one can say, in the background, it was 
thought about the capability of the unified theory of field to describe 
different types of motion. 

The second problem of the interval dS2 isn't less acute and 
principal than the first one. It appears in the theory of relativity 
because of our contradictory attitude to motion as it is. The essence 
of the problem is as follows. It is known that the trajectory of the 
moving object consists rather of a continuous succession of events 
than of a set of intervals dS2. That's not only the point that the 
interval is a secondary notion relative to the concept of event, though 
it makes deep sense. The thing is that, in fact, we can observe only a 
singular event at any fixed instant of time. The presence of the 
second event which closes the interval dS2, is of intellectual origin 
only. At a moment of its registration the second event exists 
exclusively in our intellectual imagination. In principle, it is 
impossible to observe interval dS2 without involvement of past or 



future time. Therefore, such an interval is rather a product of our 
intellectual capacities than reflection of objectively existing realities 
taken at any fixed instant at present. However, the laws of nature 
must act on the level of actually existing phenomena and quantities, 
independently of our imagination. It is a circumstance of a 
fundamental order � we either describe real processes or start to 
investigate products of our intellectual self-expression. 

The complicacy of motion registration within the limits of a 
separate event was discovered for the first in famous Zeno's aporia. 
Recollect one of his aporia � that with the flying arrow, when its 
head passes points A, B and C which are close to each other both in 
space and in time. Zeno constructed a logical series: in a moment 
when the head of the flying arrow is at a point B, it isn't already at a 
point A, and isn't at a point C yet. And in the actual, escaping, zero-
long border between the past and the future, at a point B, the head of 
the arrow is within zero interval of time, or, in other words, it isn't 
there. Using time and distance division Zeno tried to approach the 
ideal, instantaneous motion within the limits of a point. The thinker 
believed that without such a motion within the limits of a point 
interval of space and time, the course of motion itself looses its real 
sense. 

In effect, the question about location of the head of a flying arrow 
and other relative paradoxes is reduced to a problem of a proper 
attribution of the concept of 'event'. Point interpretation of the 
concept of 'event' accepted by Zeno and existing till nowadays was 
formulated on the principle of Democritus ideas about the space and 
time. Classical Newtonian mechanics strengthened these ideas by 
giving them a mathematical ground. The theory of relativity filled the 
categories of 'space' and 'time' with a new relativistic content. But 
the concept of 'event' itself in Einstein's world-view kept the 
features of old classical mechanics. It happened because Einstein 
failed to illustrate the transition from the state of rest to that of 
motion in the framework of a single event. An event, in the 
interpretation of the author of the theory of relativity, maintains its 
point character independently of kinematics, independently of 
whether the head of the arrow is in its state of rest or motion. 



Without any doubt the optimal theory of motion must proceed 
from a rule stating that the equations of mechanics adequately 
correspond to their direct destination if the motion is given within the 
framework of a separate event. The possibility to change the state of 
motion at any fixed moment of time by another state following 
immediately the first one is needed. Otherwise, we never get to know 
to track a continuous trajectory of a moving object. 

The theory of relativity considers the existing interval between 
two events, which is the true result of motion. Both relativistic theory 
and Newtonian mechanics pay no attention to the dynamical moment, 
which is the transition from one event to another. Any reference to 
differentiability of the interval dS2, references to the level of 
infinitesimal quantities, by no means help to understand kinematics 
of motion but drive the subject matter into a corner. An event is one 
event, and the interval dS2 corresponds to two separate events having 
different coordinates. The theory of relativity knows nothing about 
the mechanism of transition from one point event to another, in fact, 
it is in captivity of Zeno's aporias. It is incapacity of the theory of 
relativity to describe motion in the framework of a separate event 
that makes content of the second problem of the interval dS2, 
resulting from Einstein's four-dimensional coordinate systems. 

The third problem of the interval dS2 results from the evident 
contradiction between the principle of equivalency and point 
approach to the concept of 'event'. This problem emerges in the 
following way. 

It follows from the general theory of relativity that the existence 
of the gravitational field is caused by the existence of the pseudo-
Riemann metrics in the four-dimensional space-time. Topological 
structure of this curved space-time is described with the help of the 
same differentiated square of the interval dS2. Its existence is 
associated with four-dimensional coordinate grid put over 
gravitational field, and arbitrary selection of two infinitely near 
check points. It is clear that the procedure of selecting two points at 
the extremes of the interval dS2 is of an absolutely speculative origin. 
However, it makes possible to digitally mark the given space-time 
structure and find adequate mathematical expression for its check 
interval. 



If we place a test body into the curved space-time, according to 
principle of equivalency, it will experience universal gravitation. We 
realize that in reality, at any specific instant of time, a point event 
may be located at a single point of the curved space-time. To make 
the observed event be governed by geometrical settings and 
transported from one point of the curved space-time to another, let us 
say, initial point, the original event has to know to receive 
topological information about the space-time which surrounds it. 
However, we know that a point, by definition, is neutral with respect 
to any geometrical structures, because it is impossible to say a part of 
what geometrical structure this point is. An event of point 
interpretation, in principle, cannot accept topological information 
about the surrounding space-time, hence, cannot be governed by its 
metric settings. Incapacity of a point event to react on the curved 
space-time casts doubt on the possibility of interval dS2 appearance, 
which corresponds to the given metric structure. And becomes 
unclear, how can the interval dS2 appear as a result of the test body 
presence in the curved space-time. 

Therefore, we can state the existence of the explicit contradiction 
between the principle of equivalency and point conception about the 
notion of 'event'. To overcome this contradiction we need to take 
the concept of event out of limits of a point and provide it with 
theoretical basis, which allows the event to accept topological 
information about the surrounding space-time and be governed by its 
metric settings. Then the space-time interval dS2, which corresponds 
to the given metric structure, can appear. In fact, this is the third 
problem of the interval dS2 in Einstein's theory of relativity. 

Albert Einstein, during all his creative life, consistently defended 
the belief that all physical laws must have space-time expression. He 
insisted that any law could be expressed in the language of space-
time relations. It is difficult to object to this statement, but it doesn't 
follow that the laws of nature must have just that space-time 
presentation as the theory of relativity offers. In particular, it isn't 
necessary to define a minimum element of motion by the solution of 
the differential interval dS2, that is, using equations having regular 
continuous solutions. The modern physics convincingly proves that 
mainly periodic elementary processes are realized in nature. They, in 



principle, are not subject to differential fragmentation and posses 
exclusively quantum character. In this connection it is natural to 
assume that space-time characteristics of the minimum element of 
motion must have a certain finite value and not be subject to infinite 
fragmentation. 

Newton in his time laid down the foundations of differential 
calculus to give exact mathematical assessment of a relative velocity 
and acceleration. Differential equations gave him the opportunity to 
track continuous geometrical trajectory of an idealized mass point in 
an idealized Democritus space and time. In fact, nothing prohibited 
Newton to carry on an infinite fragmentation of a minimum interval 
of motion in an imaginary empty space and absolute time, which 
don't carry any physical interpretation. Classical ideas about space 
and time gave the possibility to consider material objects in the form 
of mass points because the idealized space and time with their 
physical properties couldn't be applied to volumetric masses. And 
real dimensions of material objects had no significance. The thing is 
that these geometrical shapes belong only to them and nothing could 
fill their place with another physical content. Logical completeness 
of classical mechanics is caused by the fact that the same check 
masses act as a unique reason for interaction between masses in 
classical mechanics. And the imaginary universal space and time 
framework was that ideal background which couldn't be objectively 
registered and didn't object to its infinite fragmentation. 

Einstein set himself much more complicated task. He combined 
space and time in a single geometrical manifold, and assigned 
specific physical properties to this metric structure, together with 
massive material objects. These properties, though in the only form 
of light postulates, were fixed for the four-dimensional space-time. 
This decision wasn't a free expression of scientist's will; it was 
predetermined by the general course of physics development and, in 
particular, by the results on detecting the ether wind. The 
experiments irrefutably proved that the four-dimensional space-time 
functions in the mode of light postulates. Therefore, it acts as an 
objective physical reality, as masses do it. In such a case the motion 
itself must be considered rather as a result of special kind of 
interaction between moving material object and physically active 



four-dimensional space-time than a simple classical substance 
transfer from one zone of the empty space and absolute time to 
another. 

While an empty space and absolute time in classical mechanics 
admit application of any mathematical solutions provided that they 
allow tracking the imaginary trajectory on the observed object in the 
emptiness, then now the situation radically changed. In the 
conditions of renewed conceptions of the principal categories of the 
Universe, the mathematical apparatus used to describe motion, must 
respond to physical interaction between the active four-dimensional 
space-time and material object moving in it. This interaction must be 
natural and non-contradictory; it doesn't admit existence of any 
paradox mentioned in the course of analysis of three critical 
problems resulting from the use of the differentiated interval dS2. 

We don't have any doubt that the most vulnerable element of the 
theory of relativity is its fatal adherence to the Newtonian differential 
calculus. It happened due to successful development of the theory of 
electromagnetic field by Faraday and Maxwell. In the 
electromagnetic theory the field acts as a physical reality carrying 
energy. This reality is described by continuous functions of 
coordinate systems. The principal conclusion of the theory of field 
consists in the statement that the interaction between check objects is 
realized through the processes propagating at constant speed in the 
space, but not with the help of the instantaneous forces acting 
between them. 

While the electromagnetic field, together with electric charges, 
occupies the place of reality in the electromagnetic theory, the four-
dimensional space-time is present instead of the electromagnetic 
field in the theory of relativity. It acts as a central acting personality 
in all relativistic constructions. In this connection it seemed natural 
for Einstein to apply the method of differential calculus which was 
successfully used in the electromagnetic theory of the field, to the 
theory of relativity created by him. In addition, the supposed identity 
of electromagnetic and optical processes factually predetermined the 
use of equations of electromagnetic theory, including the Lorentz 
transformations of coordinate systems in Einstein's theory of 
relativity. 



Honestly, we must say that Einstein never blindly championed 
ideas related to mathematical solutions of the electromagnetic theory 
by their mechanical transfer into the relativistic theory of motion. 
Suffice it to mention that he persistently selected geometrical 
equivalents for these solutions with the hope that the geometry would 
be capable to project objective physical properties of the four-
dimensional space-time and formulate the unified theory of field. 
One means the comprehensive theory where the four-dimensional 
space-time and material objects would coexist harmonically, 
permitting to interpret any physical interaction using some universal 
metric relations. What shall we say? It is obvious that one can deem 
geometry as a science capable to project the logics of physical 
interactions taking place between material bodies in space-time, and 
consider them in a topological expression. However, the topology of 
the theory of relativity in four-dimensional geometry doesn't make 
this theory free of a complex of problems arising from the solution of 
the interval dS2, taken from Einstein's four-dimensional space-time. 

To exempt the theory of relativity of the necessity to use the 
differentiated interval dS2, it isn't needed to perform any 
sophisticated multi-step operations with it. It is sufficient to take the 
concept of 'event' out of limits of a point and assign it a quantum 
space-time definition. If we succeed in filling the concept of 'event' 
with quantum content, we shall be able to consider the check event as 
a minimum element of motion, a quantum of relative velocity. 

Quantum event will allow once and for all put an end to the 
necessity to use differentiated interval dS2 when describing motion. 
In this case the space-time characteristics of one check event are 
sufficient to qualitatively estimate the relative speed. 

Giving the interval dS2 up, we, firstly, remove the problem of 
transition of this space-time interval into substance, or, vice versa, of 
substance into space-time. We have already spoken about this 
problem, and we want to emphasize once again that it is a 
godforsaken place for the theory of relativity. 

Secondly, when we remove the concept of 'event' out of limits of 
a point, we get the opportunity to track translational motion at any 
fixed moment of time. A lengthy quantum packet will envelop the 
location of a check event. Hence, the statement that the head of a 



flying arrow may be found at a certain local, mathematical point 
makes no sense at all. The location of the head of a flying arrow 
becomes an undividable quantum event and we finally put an end to 
the paradox of motion formulated by Zeno as long ago as in ancient 
time. 

And thirdly, an event in its quantum form may naturally react on 
space-time topology. In other words, the check event will be able to 
accept metric settings of the curved space-time and be subject to the 
influence of its topology. It corresponds to the principle of 
equivalency in full. 

Experimental physics convincingly demonstrates that in the 
micro-world the existence of material objects is subject to 
corpuscular-wave regularities. Then the comprehensive theory of 
displacement of material objects with respect to each other must 
reflect this objective reality and organically combine two forms � 
both corpuscular and wave motion. But the theory of relativity 
unreservedly 'ignores' corpuscular-wave duality; it seems that it has 
nothing to do with this obvious physical reality. Einstein, being a 
very consistent scientist and applying to care of experiments tried to 
do his best to eliminate such an obvious contradiction between his 
theory of motion and logics of direct experiments. 

A logical interest with respect to reasons which impede the author 
of the theory of relativity to use quantum regularities in this theory 
appears. What prevented him from considering the category of 
'event' out of limits of a geometrical point and ascribe quantum 
theoretical interpretation to the 'event', which would make possible 
to avoid the differentiated interval dS2. In fact, such a reason exists; it 
is hidden behind the choice of the mathematical apparatus of the 
theory of relativity and interpretation of its topological basis. To find 
the origin of these reasons we must analyze whether the metric 
signature of space-time relations considered in the theory of relativity, 
is fair. In other words, we must clarify, whether the space-time 
topology of equations of the theory of relativity is really an 
expression of the four-dimensional geometric manifold. 

In this respect, let us try to examine, what is the reason for the 
number 'four', why just four coordinate axes represent space-time in 
the theory of relativity? It is used to thing that Einstein's four-



dimensional coordinate grids appear as a result of addition of three 
space coordinate axes and one time axis. However, the theory of 
relativity categorically states that neither three-dimensional space, 
nor absolute one-dimensional time exists. In such a case we must 
believe that the four-dimensional coordinate systems appear as a 
result of addition of geometrical dimensions of physical categories 
which don't exist in reality. The number 'four', which characterized 
the signature of equations of the relativistic theory, is accepted as a 
result of addition of metric dimensions of geometrical configurations 
which don't exist in nature. We add anything which doesn't exist in 
nature, but we wish to get anything absolutely real. 

The choice of mathematical and conceptual apparatus both in the 
theory of relativity and in physics, in general, is closely related to the 
choice of geometry, with the selection of the metric signature for 
physical equations and its conceptual statements. It gives rise to the 
special responsibility of this subject matter. It seems absolutely 
impossible for us to take any incomprehensible matter and add it to 
the equally incomprehensible something with the aim to determine 
the geometrical signature of the space-time manifold under 
examination. Any consideration of the Minkowski equations in four-
dimensional metric signature is equally impossible. Let's write once 
again this equality: 

 

()()22222zyxctS++-=. 

 

We have already mentioned that this equation referencing to four 
coordinates axes logically contradicts with the dimension of the 
expression . Any ambiguity is impossible while determining 
geometry of the applied mathematical apparatus. And it is absolutely 
unclear, how can the coordinate axis declared as the 'time axis', 
have the dimension of m � sec /sec. In accordance with the dimension 
of it would be logical to consider this expression as still 
unknown three-digit function in three-dimensional coordinate system 
having its axes with dimension of m � sec /sec. Then an assumption 
can be made: metric configuration of the Minkowski equations is 
()2ct()2ct



based on six (not four) coordinate dimensions. This is the sum of 
three coordinate axes from the expression ()2ct and three Cartesian 
space coordinates ()222zyx++. 

To determine the true topology of the Minkowski equation and 
find its true signature we must thoroughly analyze the origin and 
predestination of this equality. 

Speaking about the origin of the Minkowski equation (as well as 
any physical equation) we must take into account that it should not 
be supposed that mathematical solutions are direct analogue models 
of the objective reality. All equations of physics are direct analogues 
of certain measuring procedures the researcher use to have contact 
with the world around us. Experimental measuring procedures 
underlie the whole process of cognition. They make possible the 
interaction between the scientist and reality and the choice of proper 
conceptual and mathematical equivalents. Therefore, equations of 
physics act rather as mathematical copies of results of some 
instrumental-measuring manipulations allowing us to quantitatively 
estimate the observed natural phenomena than as mathematical 
copies of objective reality as it is. 

Usually we don't think about it, but the most ordinary physical 
statement: 'long loaf weights one kilogram' in fact means that we 
have measuring procedure at out disposal and according to this 
procedure the given mass of bread may be put in equilibrium with a 
kilogram weight standard. Without the measuring procedure the 
statement: 'long loaf weights one kilogram' doesn't possess any 
physical sense. The same thing is when we say that 'space-time of 
the theory of relativity is the expression of the four-dimensional 
geometric manifold', it must mean that, in fact, we have any 
objective instrumental-measuring procedures, which make possible 
to determine the four-dimensionality of the geometric topology of the 
given space-time. And the number of coordinate dimensions of 
space-time under investigation, will correspond to the four-
dimensional mathematical manifold only in the case when the 
metrics of the laboratory instruments which permit to find geometric 
properties of this space-time, includes four independent coordinate 
axes. 



The famous equation of Hermann Minkowski is based on the 
measuring procedure which supposes that specific laboratory tools 
equivalent to each of its members-arguments, are available. For 
example, the argument ()222zyx++ is associated with Cartesian 
coordinate system consisting of three space coordinate axes. 
Cartesian coordinate system is a geometrical measuring instrument 
consisting of three linear metric standards, which are at right angles 
to each other. Any event or check object subject to be measured with 
the help of these simple tools may be represented and described as an 
element of the three-dimensional space geometric manifold. 

The argument ()2ctin the Minkowski equation is associated with 
two independent laboratory instruments � light signal and traditional 
chronometer. These two laboratory instruments allow us to fix check 
points in space and establish light-like relations between them using 
light signal and isochronous clock. The ability to establish light-like 
or, which is the same, time-like relation between two points in the 
space allows determining motion as a result of propagation in time 
metric aspect. 

Classical mechanics described motion in space and time taken 
apart because it couldn't reduce space and time to a single 
mathematical texture. Isaac Newton didn't know how to add metres 
to seconds or subtract them, and without this operation it was 
impossible to combine elements of space and time in a single 
mathematical solution. When we knew to establish time-like relation 
between two points in space multiplying speed of light and certain 
time interval, we got the possibility to transform time interval into 
space interval. As a result, it became possible to subtract 
()222zyx++ from the period of time ()2cttransformed into the 
space interval. It is the comparative mathematical analysis of the 
results of motion in the time interval transformed into space and in 
Cartesian coordinate system that is present in the mathematical 
texture of the Minkowski equation. 

We see that the topology of equation (3.1) assumes the presence 
of three measuring instruments. It is the Cartesian system of space 
coordinate axes, light signal and reliable chronometer. The use of 
three laboratory devices let the investigator combine relative motion 



in space and time. As a result a combined space-time interval 
appears, and it characterizes the numerical value of the relative 
speed. 
()2ct

Now, guided by common sense stating that any coordinate system 
of coordinate axis is a mathematical analogue of certain measuring 
tools, we shall try to clarify the true signature associated with 
equation (3.1). In other words, we shall try to find the number of 
coordinate axes in equation (3.1) and their real topological essence. 

Usually we consider that the Minkowski equation is composed 
according to the signature (3 + 1), here 3 is the number of three 
Cartesian space coordinate axes, and 1 is the time coordinate axis. It 
is supposed that the topology of the trajectory of light signal in the 
expression seems to disintegrate and become projected on one 
space coordinate of the Cartesian coordinate system and on time 
coordinate axis. In this case a conclusion that the signature of 
equation (3.1) corresponds to a certain four-dimensional geometric 
manifold and consists of four coordinate axes, is made. 
()2ct

But a very perfidious methodological error is hidden in this 
logical consideration. It leads us away from the correct interpretation 
of the topology of the Minkowski equation. This error is an arbitrary, 
ungrounded division of the metrics of the light signal trajectory into 
one Cartesian coordinate axes and time coordinate axes. 

The light speed in all relativistic equations is not a result of our 
fantasy but objective physical reality fixed by light postulates. In the 
Minkowski equation this objective reality acts as a reliable 
measuring instrument together with Cartesian coordinate system and 
laboratory clock. Every measuring instrument is a standard metric 
measure, one can say, a 'veritable truth' which doesn't need any 
additional measurement using other measuring standards. Hence, 
every measuring instrument possesses its proper metric topology 
irrespectively to the metrics of other laboratory devices used in the 
experiment. 

When a researcher arbitrarily assigns any topologic parameters of 
other laboratory means to a measuring instrument, he commits a 
destroying action. Bereaving light signal trajectory of its proper, 
standard space-time metrics, we remove light signal from a series of 



laboratory instruments objectively participating in the experiment. 
The procedure of registration of space interval which is present in the 
expression doesn't assume presence of any linear standard. Such 
a registration is made by the method of marking two check points of 
space with the help of light signal and laboratory clock. An 
absolutely special measuring instrument is used in this case, it has 
nothing with linear metric standard, hence, Cartesian coordinate axes. 
That's why any attempt to bind the metrics of light signal path to the 
Cartesian space coordinate axis looks absolutely unfair. 
()2ct

It is not needed to think of anything supernatural to keep metrics 
of light speed indivisible. One just has to know to apprehend the 
trajectory of light signal as combined two-digit coordinate axis with 
dimension of m/sec. One must admit that the topology of light signal 
trajectory in principle cannot de metrically delimited and must be 
always considered as two-dimensional geometric reality, which 
consists of two coordinate axes of space and time which seem to be 
combined. 

All the heuristic relativistic sense of equation (3.1) is caused by 
the existence of light signal trajectory in it, and the space-time 
topology of this signal acts as indivisible, two-dimensional geometric 
reality. It takes only to distribute the topology of light signal 
trajectory over separate coordinate dimensions of space and time, 
and our world-view immediately will be concentrated in the 
framework of the Newtonian mechanics. The combined space-time 
metrics of the light signal trajectory act as an interlink, which helps 
to overcome classical ideas about space and time as physical 
categories existing separately. 

Returning to the issue of true topology determination for the 
Minkowski equation, we must agree that the general metrics of the 
expression must be identified with three-dimensional geometric 
manifold consisting of two-dimensional trajectory of light speed plus 
time coordinate axis, but not with one coordinate dimension. In such 
a case we can say with certainty that the true geometry of the key 
equation of the theory of relativity bears no relation to the four-
dimensional coordinate systems. The thing is that the first term in the 
right side of equation (3.1), we mean (, contains three metric 
()2ct)2ct



, includes three 
coordinate dimensions which have independent interpretation. Then 
the complete signature of the Minkowski equation must be 
interpreted as (3 + 3), and it corresponds to six-dimensional 
geometric manifold. 
dimensions, and the second term, ()222zyx++
)2ct)2ct

It is important that the six-dimensional interpretation of the key 
equation of the theory of relativity allows us to consider this solution 
in the framework of corpuscular-wave regularities. In accordance 
with relativistic view, equation (3.1) determines the trajectory of 
material object displacement in the space-time metric manifold. The 
displacement in topological space is realized along three Cartesian 
coordinate axes. The displacement in time metrics is realized in 
three-digit coordinate system with the dimension of the expression 
. While the motion is realized on the basis of corpuscular 
regularities in three Cartesian coordinate dimensions, when a 
classical transport of substance from one zone of the space to another 
takes place, then the displacement in time metrics must be realized in 
accordance with wave regularities. It happens because any 
displacement in time is a qualitative change of the physical state of 
the observed object. Anyone, living his life from childhood to old 
age, is a good example of qualitative changes in time. In mechanics, 
the motion based on qualitative change of the physical state of a 
system or medium is typical for wave processes. 
()2ct

The dimension of the expression ( convincingly proves the 
wave nature of the relative motion in the time metrics of the key 
equation of the theory of relativity. In compliance with this 
dimension the geometric equivalent for ( must be interpreted as a 
wave function in the respective coordinate system with axes of m � 
sec /sec dimension. Then the true meaning of equation proposed by 
Hermann Minkowski consists in the fact that the required interval of 
observed relative motion, S2, may be determined by subtracting the 
space interval from the length of the wave function in coordinate 
system of dimension. ()2ct

From the aforesaid we can conclude that the Minkowski equation, 
more that any other equation of the quantum physics, corresponds to 



the mode of corpuscular-wave duality. To consistently comprehend 
and discover the nature of the relative motion, we must activate in 
our theoretical considerations two self-sufficient conceptions of 
relative motion realization � corpuscular and wave, which are related 
to each other by a well-known principle of complementarity. The 
relation between these two theories of motion, according to the rule 
of quantum uncertainty, must be compatible with the idea that the 
more distinctly we incline to corpuscular or wave motion, the farther 
we go away from the opposed dynamic form. 

The theory of relativity in Einstein's conceptual and mathematical 
interpretation is, mainly, a theory of motion of a corpuscular sense. A 
moving material object acts in it as a stationary formed mass of 
substance. This mass in the course of motion is removed from one 
zone of the four-dimensional space-time and placed into another 
zone. Then, in accordance with the wave regularities, the moving 
mass of substance must be interpreted as a running, disturbed local 
region of the given space-time continuum, which carries energy. And 
at any new moment of time the next local region of space-time will 
serve as a material platform for displacing mass of substance. 

The aim of this theoretical research is to develop a wave theory of 
relative motion, which according to the rule of quantum uncertainty 
organically supplements the traditional, or, we can say, corpuscular 
theory of relativity. While the traditional theory of relativity is 
expressly based on the corpuscular forms of motion that may be 
visually represented in the space metric plan ()222zyx++, the wave 
theory of relativity is mainly based on wave regularities operating 
successfully in time topologic plan of the metric structure of the 
expression . Then we shall consider the expression itself as a 
wave function the wave relative motion is realized in accordance 
with. If we know the characteristics of this wave function, we shall 
be able to find phase, as well as relative speed of displacement of the 
material object in the stated personal space-time continuum. 
()2ct

As our target is to expressly formulate the wave conception of the 
relative motion, which corresponds mainly to wave regularities, it 
seems reasonable to consider the simplest case of wave disturbance 
propagation on the free surface of water, and to refresh our ideas 



about physics of wave processes. Let us project the Cartesian system 
of coordinates on the disturbed water surface in such a way that X-
axis indicates the direction of the phase velocity, Y-axis is oriented 
along the front of wave propagation, and Z-axis is at right angles to 
X-axis and Y-axis (Fig. 3) 

 

 

 

Fig. 3 

 

In general case, the propagation of wave disturbances on the free 
water surface is associated with the bending of two-dimensional 
mirror oriented into the third dimension. Observations of the check 
point on the disturbed water surface in the Cartesian coordinate 
system prove that the motion of a corpuscular type, which is direct 
transport of substance from one region of the space to another, takes 
place only in one dimension, along Z-axis. Any displacement of 
water along X-axis isn't observed at all, however, this fact doesn't 
impede the appearance of the phase velocity of a running wave just 
in this direction. 

The corpuscular displacement of a check point on a disturbed 
water surface is characterized by its acceleration with respect to quiet 
mirror with negative and positive signs. In Fig. 3 acceleration is 
directed along the arrows, and for waves of 'gravity' it equals the 
acceleration due to gravity in the given gravitational field, if we 
neglect forces of surface tension. Simple calculations are known to 
find the function of the plane wave packet ABC marked at certain 
characteristic points with respect to Z-axis, if the phase velocity of 



wave disturbance propagation along the X-axis and acceleration 
along the Z-axis are given. 

We can add that, if we know characteristics of the plane wave 
packet ABC, in particular, its length, and if we set a gravitational 
potential, then we can find the value of the phase speed of wave 
disturbance propagation on the free water surface. For the waves of 
'gravity' the phase speed is determined as follows: 

 

p.2gvphase=. (3.2) 

 

Here g is the gravitational potential, . is the length of the wave 
packet. 

From this picture of wave disturbance propagation on the free 
water surface we can mark out the following. 

Firstly, let us take into account that there are three independent 
velocity factors in wave disturbances on water surface. It is the phase 
velocity of wave disturbance propagation along X-axis, and 
acceleration along Z-axis. The third velocity factor, whose existence 
is of a special importance for us, is the initial velocity at negative 
acceleration and final velocity at positive acceleration of the check 
point of a progressive wave directed along Z-axis. This velocity 
corresponds to the moment when initial impulse causes the 
appearance of wave disturbance. It is similar to that moment when a 
stone falls on the quiet water surface. It is at this moment that certain 
initial velocity is given, and firstly, the gravitational potential makes 
it to decrease, and then, after passing the zero level of the state of rest, 
it increases up to the initial, in the ideal case, value. 

And secondly, we must recognize that the plane wave packet ABC, 
which appears when wave disturbances propagate on the free water 
surface, in fact, plays a part of an extreme metric formation, and the 
curved water surface is gauged according to it. While determining 
the plane wave packet ABC as an extreme metric formation, we base 
on the idea that the category of 'wave' is an indivisible quantity. We 
can mathematically resolve the wave function into separate 
fragments, but this procedure cannot be done in real physical 



situation. We can perform very sophisticated experiments, but it is 
impossible to get neither a part of a wave, nor a point of it. Any wave 
exists as a whole, it is a quantum formation, that's why the plane 
wave packet ABC on the disturbed water surface is an extreme and 
indivisible quantity. 

To determine the configuration of the asked wave function 
responsible for relative motion on the basis of wave regularities, we 
need to analyze the process of material object displacement in the 
given PS-TC with respect to the time component of the Minkowski 
equation. In other words, we need to describe relative motion as a 
result of wave disturbance propagation in the three-dimensional 
coordinate system having the dimension of ()2ct. While doing it we 
shall apply the useful experience based on observations of wave 
disturbances on the free water surface. The acquired experience 
proves that the appearance of the plane wave packet ABC responsible 
for gauging the wave disturbance, is followed by the existence of 
three speed factors. It is natural to assume that the appearance of 
wave function which allows us to calibrate the relative motion in 
time metrics is also associated with three independent speed factors. 

The wave function corresponding to the expression ()2ctis shown 
in Figure 4 in three-dimensional coordinate system with axes having 
m � sec /sec dimension. 

 

 

Fig. 4 



The coordinate system shown in Fig. 4 consists of two-digit X/t 
coordinate axis, which is identified with the trajectory of light signal 
propagation, and time t coordinate axis. The positive direction of the 
time t axis corresponds to the future, its negative direction 
corresponds to the past, and point O (point of intersection of 
coordinate axes) corresponds to the present. The peculiarity of the 
chronometric version of the time t coordinate axis consists in the fact 
that all qualities of past, present and future time act as equivalent 
arguments. It means that any time series projected on the time axis 
consists of equivalent points without any exclusion. 

In the Figure we can easily see that the wave disturbance, which 
characterizes the displacement of material object in time metrics of 
the given PS-TC is followed by acceleration of the check point of the 
wave function along the time axis. Similar to wave disturbances on 
the water surface, this acceleration may acquire positive or negative 
values depending on its direction, but it always equals the value of 
the light speed in vacuum (+gc or �gc). Note that this acceleration is 
the first speed factor of the set of three independent speeds, 
following the appearance of the wave disturbance. The initial 
velocity at the negative acceleration and the final velocity at the 
positive acceleration, being the primary impulse for wave process 
appearance (it is analogous to the moment when a stone falls over a 
calm water surface), correspond to corpuscular relative velocity of 
the material object displacement in the given PS-TC. Let us 
determine the relative velocity, v, as the second speed factor causing 
the origin of the wave disturbance. The phase velocity of wave 
disturbance propagation along the X/t axis always equals the light 
velocity in vacuum and acts as the third speed factor needed for the 
wave process progress. 

We have marked three characteristic points of the wave function 
along t-axis in the same Figure. Points A, B and C limit the plane 
wave packet, which appears when the material object displaces in 
time metrics of the given PS-TC and is the extreme metric formation 
for given wave disturbance. We take into account that the wave 
packet is a quantum quantity which is not subject to further 
fragmentation. 



A is the amplitude of the plane wave packet ABC, whose 
projection on the time axis (distance A1C1) has time dimension and is 
determined by the solution of three aforesaid speeds, 

 

cgvccA22--
=. (3.3) 

 

Here c is the phase speed, which is equal to the speed of light in 
vacuum; v is the corpuscular speed of the displacement of a material 
object in the given PS-TC; gc is the acceleration of the check point of 
the wave function in time coordinate dimension, which equals the 
light speed in vacuum. 

If v = 0 the solution of equation (3.3) becomes zero, which 
conforms the theoretical premise about the appearance of the plane 
wave packet ABC when a material object displaces in the time 
metrics of the given PS-TC. If v = c the amplitude of the wave 
packet reaches its maximum value of unity. If the speed of the 
relative motion exceeds the speed of light, v > c, the initial speed at 
the negative acceleration along the t-axis, being the primary impulse 
for wave disturbance appearance, exceeds the rate of change of the 
acceleration itself, and the wave disturbance isn't realized in the time 
metrics of the given PS-TC. A moving material object just shoots 
through the given space-time continuum without registration because 
the plane wave packet ABC which gauges the wave disturbance has 
no time to form. That's why the theory of relativity puts limitations 
and prohibits increase in relative velocity over the value of light 
velocity. It is clear that the displacement of material objects with 
respect to each other may occur at any high velocity. But only that 
material object whose relative speed doesn't exceed that of light, 
may be registered in the specific PS-TC, i.e. pass the state of wave 
disturbance in its time metric plan. 

The plane wave packet ABC shown in Figure 4, in fact, is a 
geometrical justification for relative motion wave conception 
functioning, which is based on a time component of the Minkowski 
equation. In accordance with the wave theory of relativity, when a 
material object moves uniformly along straight line in given personal 



space-time continuum, the wave disturbance of a material platform 
of the moving object in a time metric plan of the given PS-TC takes 
place. This wave disturbance is gauged in accordance with the 
configuration of the plane wave packet ABC, suitable for the 
expression . For any accelerated relative motion the 
configuration of the wave packet ABC transforms from its plane 
symmetry into a curved, but in this context the talk turns to the 
inertial motion. 
()2ct

We remember that the category of 'wave' is an indivisible 
quantity, and we have to consider a plane wave packet ABC shown in 
Fig. 4, as an indivisible quantum of the event, because it is an 
extreme geometric formation. If we know the characteristics of this 
quantum of the event, we can determine the relative velocity of 
material object displacement in the given PS-TC. The latter directly 
results from equation (3.3). For example: 

 

()ccAgcAgv-=2. (3.4) 

 

It was already noted that our ideas about the relative notion in 
accordance with quantum regularities must meet the requirements of 
the corpuscular-wave duality. That's why we cannot present its 
comprehensive description using only corpuscular or wave 
mechanics of relative motion. When relative displacement of the 
material object in the given PS-TC becomes object of observations, 
we need to combine elements of two dynamic types of motion and 
get a resulting. The combination must be made in such a way that the 
relative motion in the space metric plan should realize in accordance 
with corpuscular regularities, and in time metric plan � according to 
wave regularities. The famous equation written by Hermann 
Minkowski suggests such an averaged corpuscular-wave 
characteristic of relative motion. Pursuant to this equality the true 
relative velocity of material object displacement in the given PS-TC 
is the difference between the length of the wave packet responsible 
for calibration of the relative motion in the time metric plan and 
space interval, which is the result of relative motion in the space 
metric plan. 



To better imagine the actual combination of wave and corpuscular 
signs of the relative motion we need to apply to the well-known 
Zeno's aporia with the flying arrow. Let us analyze the situation 
when the head of the flying arrow consequently passes closely set 
points A, B and C in the personal space-time continuum. 

 

 

 

Fig. 5 

 

With this aim let us place the trajectory of Zeno's arrow into the 
two-dimensional coordinate system consisting of one space 
coordinate axis, X-axis, and one time, t, axis (Fig. 5). In fact, the 
flight of Zeno's arrow with respect to the given PS-TC takes place in 
the six-dimensional geometric manifold. To visualize our 
considerations we use only one coordinate axis, X-axis, taken from 
the space metrics, and time, t, coordinate axis, taken from the time 
metric plan of the given PS-TC. Nevertheless, we shall continuously 
take into account that it is a combined space-time coordinate system 
where both corpuscular and wave signs of motion are realized. 

The logical reasoning proposed by Zeno and stating that at the 
moment when the head of the flying arrow is at the point B, it is no 
longer at the point A, but not yet at the point C (Fig. 5), is based on 
classical ideas about space and time absoluteness. Antique 
philosopher imagined relative motion exclusively as a corpuscular 
process. But in fact, in accordance with the quantum regularities the 



statement that at any fixed moment of time the head of the flying 
arrow is at the point B doesn't possess any physical meaning. In view 
of corpuscular-wave ideas about relative motion, the head of the 
arrow at any fixed moment of time is present at the same time at the 
wave function A1BC1 as a whole, which acts as an indivisible 
quantum of relative motion. The only reserve must be made: at a 
segment from A1 to B the head of the flying arrow is present in past 
time, at a segment from B to C1 it is present in future time, and only 
at the point B the location of the head of the flying arrow 
corresponds to the present moment of time. Besides, we must clearly 
realize that the head of the flying arrow at one time objectively is 
present at the wave function A1BC1 as a whole in past, present and 
future quality. There are wave regularities that prohibit us to tear 
these time qualities due to existing impossibility to divide wave 
packet A1BC1 into separate and independent fragments. 

Therefore, all the paradoxes formulated by Zeno in his famous 
aporias, result from incorrect understanding of nature of motion. As 
soon as we take the concept of 'event' away of the point limits and 
give it space-time definition, these paradoxes will be resolved by 
themselves. 

Relativistic effects serve as reliable evidence of the fact that the 
displacement of material objects in the given PS-TC is realized in 
accordance with corpuscular-wave regularities. In particular, we can 
mention the Lorentz contraction of registered length of the moving 
object. In fact, if we place a newspaper sheet on the disturbed water 
surface, we can find that the projection of the sheet on the coordinate 
axis directed along the phase velocity of wave disturbance 
propagation is less than the length of this sheet in its free state. The 
greater the phase velocity, the bigger the curvature of the wave 
disturbance and the shorter is the length of the projected newspaper 
sheet. Similarly, the projection of the length of a material object 
moving in the given PS-TC on the space coordinate axis indicating 
the direction of the relative velocity is less than the length of the 
same object in the state of rest. 

Geometrical dependence of Lorentz contraction of the length of a 
flying arrow with respect to the amplitude of the plane wave packet 
which gauges the relative motion, is shown in Fig. 6 in two-



dimensional space-time coordinate system. Similar to the previous 
experiment with the flying arrow, to make our considerations more 
obvious, we take only one space coordinate axis, X, and time axis, t, 
of the six-dimensional metric manifold which corresponds to the 
metrics of the given PS-TC. As a result, we get a combined space-
time coordinate system shown in the Figure. 

 

 

 

Fig. 6 

 

Let the distance AC along the X-axis correspond to the length of 
the flying arrow in the state of rest, L0. Then the two legs of the 
triangle ABC show all possible values of the relativistic length of the 
flying arrow projected on the X-axis, depending on the value of the 
relative velocity. One of them is shown as a segment A1C1 parallel to 
AC, and other values are found in the range from the base of the 
triangle AC up to its vertex. This distance decreases when we 
approach point B. The value of the length of the flying arrow 
registered by immobile observer is determined in this Figure by the 
amplitude of the plane wave packet represented in the Figure by a 
small wave function. The amplitude of this wave packet, the distance 
DD1, marks the level of space coordination of the projection of the 
length of the flying arrow on X-axis. For example, when v = c, the 
amplitude of the plane wave packet used to calibrate relative motion 
has its maximum value which equals 1. Then the relativistic length of 



the flying arrow projected on the X-axis is point D or practically 
equals zero. 

To determine the relativistic length of the flying arrow one must 
find the distance A1C1 in Fig. 6. The procedure is as follows: 

 

111BDCABDAC=; 
BDBDACCA111�=; 

()
BDDDBDACCA111-�=. 
(4.5) 

 

We can write (4.5) as: 

 

 
tgvcctLLl.--
-.�=
220. 
(4.6) 

 

Determine in equation (4.6) as rate of change of velocity and 
make the substitution. Then: 
lg

 

220222022022022011111cvLcvcLvccLcvccLttcvcctLL-�=
-
�=
=..
.
..
.-+-�=
=..
.
.
..
.
.--
-�=
=
..--
-.�= 


 (4.7) 



As we see, in the result of these calculations we get Lorentz 
transformation for the length of the flying arrow which was used by 
Einstein in his theory of relativity. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

INERTIA 

Any mechanics which pretends to be a comprehensive theory of 
motion, must be, in the first place, a theory of matter and explain its 
basic property � the inertia. For this purpose it must have an effective 
conceptual arsenal capable to adequately attribute the nature of 
principal categories of the Universe and comprehensively describe 
their functional contribution to different states related to dynamics of 
motion. In principle, we can mention four absolutely independent 
states of the test massive material object in the given personal space-
time, each of them having its independent physical concept which 
distinguishes them from other states. Let us indicate these states and 
name them 'four problems of Newtonian apple'. 

The first state corresponds to the situation when the apple hangs 
on the tree branch and maintains its state of rest relative to the Earth. 
Physical sense of such a state is determined by the interaction of the 
check apple and the terrestrial gravitational field. As a result the 
apple hanging on the tree acquires a reserve of potential energy. 

The second state of the apple may be registered during its free fall 
in the terrestrial personal space-time. In this situation the apple seems 
to be released from the 'arms' of universal gravitation and accepts 
its metric settings. But at the moment when the apple loses contact 
with the tree the mysterious transformation of the potential energy 
into kinetic energy takes place. And we don't know what happens at 
this moment to the check apple, and how does the energy 
transformation occur. 

The third state was registered by Isaac Newton at that time. This 
state corresponds to the moment when the falling apple reaches the 
surface of the Earth. Then the kinetic energy is released from the 
apple and it transforms into impact, heat, sound energy, etc. In other 



words, the kinetic energy of the falling apple seems to crumble to 
various kinds of different energies. And again, we know absolutely 
nothing about these energy reincarnations. The thing is that we don't 
know the kind or form of energy accumulated in the falling apple 
before its 'crumbling' to variety of energies. 

The fourth state of the apple is associated with the forced 
imposition of acceleration to it, when deeply vexed Newton throws 
this ill-fated apple which hurt his head, away. The energy exchange 
takes place again. Newton's energy is transferred to the apple thrown 
away, and acquires the form of kinetic energy in it. Using real 
arguments we must explain the way for Newton's energy transfer to 
the thrown apple, and physical transformation taking place during the 
process. 

Any of four states mentioned above and associated with the 
presence of the test apple in the terrestrial PS-TC, possesses its 
individual physical meaning. The reliable, let us say it, theory of 
relative motion must clearly explain each of these states. It must 
reasonably explain the energy reincarnations in these thought 
experiments. It must do it using the mathematical language and with 
the help of conceptual statements accessible to our understanding as 
well. 

We must acknowledge that the modern scientific thought doesn't 
possess any reasonable theory of motion to fully explain any of the 
four aforesaid states of apple, though it seems quite strange. If we 
succeed in finding the complete explanation for any of these states, 
then such a theoretical procedure might be universal tool to create a 
comprehensive theory of relative motion. One shall get a possibility 
to explain all other dynamic states of the apple related to its presence 
in the terrestrial PS-TC. 

It is known that the Newtonian mechanics with its famous laws 
offers satisfactory mathematical solution for any of the mentioned 
states of the apple in the terrestrial personal space-time. But it 
succeeds to do it in the special conceptual system consisting of mass 
points acting at a distance and absolutely empty space when absolute 
time passes uniformly. A weak point of the classical mechanics is 
caused, firstly, by insufficiency of conceptual arguments it is based 
on. In fact, none mathematical point or differentiated intervals 



between them are related to principal categories of the Universe. 
Hence, they cannot be interpreted as real physical equivalents for the 
natural process of relative motion. And secondly, the mathematical 
apparatus of the Newtonian mechanics isn't adapted to Lorentz 
corrections whose significance becomes rather important at higher 
relative speeds. 

Within the framework of Newton's conceptual system any 
promising prerequisite for the solution of any of the four problems 
related to the check apple presence in the terrestrial PS-TC, actually 
doesn't exist. The thing is that the methodology of considering 
massive material object as a mass point doesn't imply any positive 
result in searching any effective idea to consider the apple as a 
carrier of energy. In fact, from the physical standpoint, what can we 
say about the apple hanging on a tree and possessing potential energy 
if this apple is represented by a mass point and the amount of energy 
depends only on a distance to the Earth? How shall we indicate the 
place of this energy concentration and type of the energy, if instead 
of real picture of processes taking place in nature we have only 
points and distances between them at our disposal? 

Later, Einstein proposed a renewed version of the Newtonian 
mechanics after finding its triviality and restriction of its applicability. 
This version possesses its own system of concepts consisting of a 
continuous space-time field and same mass points substituting 
massive material objects. Einstein's equations of motion are much 
more exact compared with Newton's equations, but they are also 
vapid in the sense that they don't include expressions for force and 
energy accessible for our understanding. Even if such an expression 
exists, it is a very arbitrary one, because force and energy existing in 
it, depend on derivatives of coordinate with respect to time. In any 
case, the theory of relativity is only a geometric scheme of 
distribution of the mentioned mass points substituting real material 
objects. This is merely a scheme in four-dimensional coordinate grid 
imitating the four-dimensional space-time. 

The theory of relativity, as well as Newtonian mechanics, doesn't 
offer any promising ideas capable to explain the difference between 
the apple hanging on a tree and the apple in state of free fall. While 
from the physical standpoint we deal with two absolutely different as 



to their interpretation material objects. In one of them potential 
energy is accumulated, and it is the kinetic energy in the other object. 
And we cannot speak of any comprehensive theory of relative 
motion till the moment when we really determine the way of energy 
transformation. This problem cannot be solved if a massive material 
object is represented by a point mass. Even the bravest imagination 
cannot represent a point as a carrier of energy or as a place for its 
transformations. 

To predict the possible universal theory of motion, let us 
thoroughly analyze one of four problems related to the check apple in 
the terrestrial personal space-time continuum. Let us pay attention to 
the situation when Newton throws the apple fallen on his head, away, 
and analyze it. Let us try to find the answer to the question about the 
way, Newton's force was transported to the ill-fated apple. Newton 
imparts kinetic energy to the apple at the moment when the apple 
accelerates. But the energy is exclusively a physical notion, not a 
mathematical one, hence, it is a material notion. Therefore, we must 
attribute this event in the system of physical concepts instead of 
doing any recalculation of abstract coordinates-symbols. 

We can formulate the problem of Newton's energy transfer to the 
thrown apple in another way, as an unwillingness of the mass 
experiencing the force, to move. The Austrian scientist Ernst Mach 
thought that one can explain inertia � unwillingness of a mass to 
move when the force is applied, by mutual attraction of all the 
substance in the Universe. In this case the mass of a material object 
isn't its distinctive feature but depends on mass distribution in the 
Universe. If the substance in the outer space is distributed non-
uniformly, then the inertia has different values in different directions. 
This hypothesis is known as 'Mach's principle'. To illustrate his 
considerations Mach offered thought experiments with a classical 
astronaut. Let us recall one of these experiments. 

Imagine the Universe with the only material object in it. Let it be 
the Newtonian apple which possesses its personal space-time 
continuum in the absolute matrix space, as we already know it. The 
centre of mass of the apple is organically related to the initial point of 
its PS-TC. In the absolute space of the Universe they act as a unified 



physical system 'material object � personal continuum'. Let us show 
this physical system in Fig. 7. 

 

 

 

Fig. 7 

 

The small shaded area in Fig. 7 represents the Newtonian apple. 
Two opposite directions, AO and BO, represent two arbitrary 
trajectories of the matrix matter of the absolute space entering the 
mass of the apple. Suppose that the apple is the source of 
electromagnetic waves (light source) and circumscribe a reference 
circle in its personal space-time continuum, which is drawn along the 
front of light waves propagation. Note that the radius OA equals the 
distance travelled by the light within one second. 

By analogy with Fig. 7 we construct a working model shown in 
Fig. 8. 

 

 

Fig. 8 



The model consists of aluminium hoop with the experimental 
apple hanging on two springs, A and B, fixed in its geometrical 
centre. The analogy between two physical systems represented in Fig. 
7 and 8 consists in the fact that both of them are flexible structures. 
Any kinematical manipulations with the experimental apple shown in 
Fig. 8, cannot propagate immediately over the model. The reaction of 
the aluminium hoop on any change in the relative speed of the 
experimental apple occurs with certain delay which depends on 
flexible properties of the springs. In the same way the restrictions 
imposed on the speed of light signals propagation in the tested PS-
TC make the physical system 'material object � personal continuum' 
as flexible, as the working model is. 

In addition, the both constructions naturally tend to the balanced, 
equilibrated state. Then the experimental apple shall be found in the 
geometrical centre of the aluminium hoop, which is similar to the 
Newtonian apple at the centre of its PS-TC. We shall repeat all the 
further thought experiments with Newtonian apple in empty 
Universe with the working model. It will guarantee the visualization 
of further conclusions and reliability of their argumentations. 

Assume that a classical astronaut in the empty Universe comes up 
to the Newtonian apple and starts to uniformly displace it along the 
straight-line X-axis (Fig. 7). As the thought experiments takes place 
in the empty outer space (in the absence of any material objects), we 
interpret X-axis as an idealized geometrical direction which isn't 
related to any body of reference. At a certain moment of time let the 
classical astronaut send a light signal from the Newtonian apple 
moving along X-axis towards the greater circle which is drawn along 
the front of light waves propagation in its personal space-time 
continuum. Let us see how this though experiment might be realized. 
And let us see whether the equilibrium state of the physical system 
'material object � personal continuum' is disturbed or not. 

We know that the initial point for any personal continuum is 
inherently related to the centre of mass of a material object, which 
causes the existence of the given PS-TC. Then, if the Newtonian 
apple is displacing uniformly at a certain speed along the idealized X-
axis, its personal space-time will follow it at the same speed together 
with the circle drawn along the front of light waves propagation. To 



be sure of it, we must repeat this thought experiment using the 
working model. It is obvious that when the experimental apple 
uniformly displaces along X-axis (Fig. 8), the physical system 'check 
apple � aluminium hoop' will have the same aspect as it has in its 
state of rest. 

Now assume that the classical astronaut comes up to the 
Newtonian apple and starts to impart constant acceleration to it along 
the idealized X-axis (Fig. 9). 

 

 

 

Fig. 9 

 

Let the astronaut send a light signal at a certain moment of time 
from the accelerating apple towards the circle drawn along the front 
of light waves propagation. Let us see what impact the proposed 
experiment will make on the general state of the physical system 
'material object � personal continuum'. And try to clarify the 
character of relations between the centre of mass of the Newtonian 
apple and geometrical centre of its PS-TC. 

It is known that the restrictions imposed on the speed of light 
signals propagation result in flexibility of the structure of the 
physical system 'material object � personal continuum'. Any 
dynamical manipulations related to displacement of the Newtonian 
apple cannot immediately propagate through the whole system. The 
example of such manipulations is a case when a classical astronaut 
starts to change the relative speed of the Newtonian apple 



displacement along the idealized X-axis applying his force. This 
change in velocity cannot spread over the whole personal space-time 
continuum of the check apple at a time. Meanwhile the light signal 
sent by the classical astronaut covers the distance OA (Fig. 9) and 
reaches the circle drawn along the front of light waves propagation, 
the centre of mass of the apple travels the distance between points O 
and O1. 

Under the action of astronaut's force the mass of the apple leaves 
the geometrical centre of the circle drawn along the front of light 
waves propagation in its PS-TC. It means that the physical system 
'material object � personal continuum' becomes disturbed from its 
state of equilibrium. Once the action of astronaut's force over the 
apple stops, the physical system 'material object � personal 
continuum' immediately tends to its state of equilibrium, when the 
centre of mass of the apple becomes the geometrical centre of its PS-
TC. It is this tendency of the physical system 'material object � 
personal continuum' to reach the state of equilibrium that causes the 
unwillingness of any mass to move in response to the force action. 

The similar thought experiment can be done on the working 
model. It definitely indicates that the accelerating mass of the 
experimental apple becomes displaced from the geometrical centre of 
the aluminium hoop as a result of apple's acceleration along X-axis. 

Therefore, we can conclude that according to Mach's principle all 
the bodies which have rest mass resist the action of a force 
independently whether there are other masses in the surrounding 
world or not. This unwillingness of the test body to obey the force is 
caused by the tendency of the physical system 'material object � 
personal continuum' to reach the state of equilibrium. And the force 
applied to the accelerating object, is used to displace the mass of the 
object from the geometrical centre of its PS-TC. The greater the mass 
of the object under investigation, the stronger the internal bindings 
which control the physical system 'material object � personal 
continuum' in its state of equilibrium, and greater effort is needed to 
disbalance it. 

However, continue our thought experiments with the Newtonian 
apple, now let us do them not in the empty Universe, but in more 
realistic conditions. In other words, let us analyze different dynamic 



states of the apple relative to the real PS-TC instead of idealized X-
axis. The peculiarity of these experiments consists in the fact that 
when we describe the kinematics of the Newtonian apple in real 
conditions we deal with two personal space-time continuums instead 
of one. We mean the given external personal continuum related to 
the selected body of reference, and the personal space-time of the test 
apple. 

Basing on the statement of equality and equivalence of all 
personal continuums we can use both given external PS-TC and 
personal space-time of the Newtonian apple to describe its motion. In 
such a case, on the one hand, we can speak about the displacement of 
the experimental apple with respect to the external PS-TC and plot 
the wave packet for calibration of this relative motion at the level of 
the luminiferous normal level of the external personal space-time. On 
the other hand, we can describe the displacement of the Newtonian 
apple using its PS-TC and plot the wave packet at the level of the 
luminiferous normal level of the personal space-time of the apple 
itself. 

Let the classical astronaut impart certain constant and rectilinear 
velocity to the Newtonian apple with respect to the external personal-
time continuum related to a certain massive material object but not 
the idealized X-axis. Try to clarify, how shall we interpret such a 
thought experiment? It is known that in the course of inertial 
displacement of the Newtonian apple relative to the external PS-TC, 
wave disturbance of the local region of the given personal space-time 
takes place. This region serves as the real material platform for a 
moving object. The wave disturbance takes place in the time metrics 
of the given PS-TC and is followed by an emerging plane wave 
packet needed to gauge the given relative motion. If we know the 
characteristics of this wave packet acting as an indivisible quantum 
of an event, we can find both phase and relative velocities of the 
Newtonian apple displacement relative to the external PS-TC. 

If we consider the inertial displacement of the Newtonian apple 
from the standpoint of its PS-TC, then we find that the given relative 
velocity cannot be registered in the personal space-time of the apple 
itself. From the results of the previous thought experiments it follows 
that in case of uniform rectilinear displacement of the experimental 



apple along the idealized X-axis, the physical system 'material object 
� personal continuum' maintains the same aspect as in the case when 
it is in its state of rest. It means that in the course of inertial 
displacement of the Newtonian apple there are no wave disturbances 
in its personal space-time, and it is impossible to speak about the 
appearance of the wave packet to gauge relative velocity. Now we 
can formulate the first principally important generalization. 
According to this generalization an inertial motion of any material 
object in the external personal space-time is identical to the state of 
rest of this object in its PS-TC. 

Now assume that the classical astronaut begins to impart constant 
acceleration to the Newtonian apple. Let us try to investigate the 
process of the apple accelerated motion relative to both external and 
inherent PS-TC. 

We have already established that in the course of the inertial 
motion the Newtonian apple maintains its state of rest in its inherent 
PS-TC, but displaces relative to the external personal space-time. But 
if a certain constant acceleration is given to the Newtonian apple, the 
situation radically changes. Now the mass of the check apple 
displaces relative to the external personal space-time continuum and 
its inherent PS-TC as well. However, we must note that while the 
Newtonian apple moves with constant acceleration if it is uniformly 
accelerated by a classical astronaut relative to the external PS-TC, 
then it moves uniformly at constant velocity relative to its inherent 
PS-TC. 

And now the second principally important generalization, which is 
symmetric to the first one, can be formulated. It states that the 
accelerated motion of a material object relative to the external PS-TC 
is equivalent to its uniform straight-line motion in its inherent 
personal space-time. It is this fundamental identity between 
accelerated motion of a test body in an external personal continuum 
and uniform motion in its inherent personal space-time that later on 
serves as a guiding idea to understand the nature of the universal 
gravitation. 

Assume that the classical astronaut stands on the roof of a multi-
storeyed building with the Newtonian apple in his hand. The apple, 
as it is known, possesses its inherent PS-TC in the absolute space of 



the Universe. The proposed thought experiment takes place provided 
that the unified physical system 'Newtonian apple � personal 
continuum' is placed into the personal space-time continuum of the 
Earth. Let the astronaut send a light signal from the check apple at a 
certain moment of time. We shall consider the process of light signal 
propagation from the standpoint of the terrestrial PS-TC and personal 
space-time of the apple itself. To do it, let us analyze Fig. 10. 

 

 

 

Fig 10 

 

In Fig. 10 we see the Newtonian apple with its centre of mass at 
point O. A big dotted circle with its geometrical centre at point O is 
drawn along the front of light waves propagation in the personal 
space-time continuum of the Newtonian apple. Such a relation 
between the centre of mass of a material object and geometrical 
centre of its PS-TC is typical for the case when the physical system 
'material object � personal continuum' is in the state of equilibrium. 
The radius OA is the distance travelled by the light signal within one 
second. 

Near the surface of the Earth the matrix matter of the absolute 
space moves towards the centre of its mass at a speed of 9.8 m/sec, in 
accordance with the solution of equation (3.2). Let us write this 
equality again: 

 

 



 

2""
RMvD�=.. (5.1) 

 

If our planet absorbs the matter of the absolute space of the 
Universe in it limits, then in Fig. 10 the events must proceed as 
follows. Meanwhile the light signal sent from the Newtonian apple 
travels the distance from point O to point A (distance travelled within 
one second), point A itself displaces to the point A1 at a speed of 9.8 
m/sec. And in addition to point A which displaces to the point A1 the 
whole circle (dotted line) drawn along the front of light waves 
propagation displaces to the position indicated by a circle drawn in 
Fig. 10 using the continuous line. As a result we find that in spite of 
the apparent state of rest of the check apple relative to the surface of 
the Earth, the physical system 'Newtonian apple � personal 
continuum' has the same aspect as if the check apple would displace 
in its inherent PS-TC at a constant speed of 9.8 m/sec, or, which is 
the same, uniformly accelerate relative to the terrestrial personal 
space-time with acceleration 9.8 m/sec2. 

Therefore, the classical astronaut standing with the apple in the 
hand on the roof of the multi-storeyed building comes to a 
conclusion that if the check apple maintains its state of rest relative 
to the surface of the Earth, then the combined physical system 
'Newtonian apple � personal continuum' demonstrates all signs of 
uniformly accelerated motion. It means that the classical astronaut 
logically comes to the general principle of equivalency which 
declares the absolute equivalency of inertial and gravitational mass. 
According to this general principle the observer cannot distinguish 
between uniformly accelerated motion of the test body in the absence 
of gravitational fields and the state of rest of the same body in an 
intensive gravitational field. 

We can add that the classical astronaut keeps certain possibility of 
option. Depending on his will, he has the possibility to find the 
acceleration of the physical system 'Newtonian apple � personal 
continuum' which is in state of rest relative to the Earth from the 



standpoint of the terrestrial PS-TC. In this case, he gets satisfactory 
solution using the famous Newtonian equality: 

 

2RMg�=.. (5.2) 

 

The dimension of the solution of Newtonian equation (5.2) is 
m/sec2. This is absolutely justified dimension if applicable to the 
terrestrial personal space-time. 

If the classical astronaut decides to find the acceleration of the 
physical system 'Newtonian apple � personal continuum' which is 
visually in state of rest relative to the Earth from the standpoint of the 
apple itself, he needs to operate with equation (5.1). 

The dimension of the solution of this equality is m/sec. This 
dimension is also absolutely justified if applicable to the inherent 
personal space-time of the check apple. 

From the physical standpoint both equalities (5.1) and (5.2) are 
absolutely identical. They are identical in the interpretation given in 
connection with the fundamental symmetry between the uniformly 
accelerated motion of the test body in the given PS-TC and its 
uniform displacement in the inherent personal space-time. 

The principal conclusion made by the classical astronaut standing 
with the Newtonian apple in his hand on the rood of the multi-
storeyed building may be briefly formulated as follows. As the Earth 
within its limits absorbs the matter from the absolute space of the 
Universe at a speed of 9.8 m/sec, the check apple in the terrestrial 
PS-TC maintains its state of rest relative to the Earth, however the 
combined physical system 'Newtonian apple � personal continuum' 
experiences such an action as if the apple be imparted constant 
acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2. 

A breaking of the equilibrium state of the physical system 'check 
apple � personal continuum' results in the fact that the classical 
astronaut standing on the roof of the multi-storeyed building 
experiences the pressure of the apple mass directed towards the 
centre of the Earth. The force of pressure of the apple in the 
astronaut's hand is the expressions of the tendency of the physical 



system 'material object � personal continuum' to reach the state of 
equilibrium. As soon as the astronaut standing on the roof of the high 
building releases the experimental apple, the physical system 
'material object � personal continuum' gets the chance to acquire the 
state of equilibrium. It happens when the geometrical centre of the 
circle drawn along the front of light waves propagation in the 
personal space-time of the check apple and the centre of its mass 
coincide. It may happen if the Newtonian apple uniformly 
accelerates with acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2 relative to the Earth. 

In fact, when the apple is in the hand of the astronaut, or in the 
state of rest relative to the Earth, the physical system 'Newtonian 
apple � personal continuum' experiences acceleration. But now the 
physical system 'Newtonian apple � personal continuum' returns to 
its state of equilibrium due to acceleration of the check apple with 
respect to the Earth. 

If we sum up our theoretical speculations and try to track the 
logical line reflecting the order of realization of the mechanism of the 
universal gravitation, we can make such a generalization. 

In Newtonian mechanics universal gravitation is the result of 
gravitational interaction between two masses of substance realized 
with the help of the mysterious forces of instant long-range action. 
There are two attributed physical operators in this mechanics; they 
are two masses of substance and an unknown essence. The theory of 
relativity radically changes the situation. Gravitational interaction 
according to Einstein is realized in accordance to much more 
complicated scheme. In accordance with the theory of relativity, the 
gravitating mass forms a gravitational field that imparts acceleration 
to the test body. In other words, the test body reacts on the 
gravitational field and not on the mass forming this field, as Newton 
thought. As we see, there are three attributed physical operators in 
the theory of relativity � two masses of substance and gravitational 
field. And the key interaction according to Einstein consists in 
interrelations between gravitational field and test body. This 
assumption is analogous to that of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory 
built on interaction of the electromagnetic field and electromagnetic 
charge. 



In this theoretical construction the universal gravitation is realized 
in accordance with even more complicated scheme. Here the 
gravitating mass forms its personal space-time. The latter, in its turn, 
influences the metric structure of the personal continuum of the test 
body. And the intrinsic personal space-time continuum of the text 
body makes the check mass to experience universal gravitation. 
Therefore, there are four attributed physical operators participating in 
gravitational interaction. And the key events, according to our 
version, take place in the interaction between personal continuums of 
two gravitating masses. 

 

 



 

 

CONTENTS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PREFACE 3 
CREATION OF THE WORLD 7 
PERSONAL SPACE � TIME CONTINUUM, WHAT IS IT? 38 
QUANTA OF MOTION 70 
INERTIA 100 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

B. Dmitriev 

 

What is motion? 

___________________________________