On this page of presentation, Yuo can get acquinted with unconventional explanation and

Force of gravity as a projection of electro-weak force

The multi-dimensional quality of the Unity described by the structure of the Model also offers a very unusual explanation of the force of gravity.
The theory of Relativity is a scientific reality. It may be corrected in future, but most probably only to the extent that it should become an integral part of a new, more general theory, where its essence will still remain unchanged. As we already know, the theory has explained the increase in the mass of an object whose velocity is also increasing. What is assumed here is the fact that we are dealing with PONDEROUS mass, honouring the principle of equality of heavy and ponderous mass, and thus avoiding the problem of giving an exact explanation of the increase in HEAVY mass. For, the General Relativity theory defines the effects of ponderous mass on spacetime, but the very mechanism of this influence or its change has not been defined sufficiently clearly. In fact, this applies for the gravitation force in its entirety, as the hypothetic quants of gravitational interaction, called gravitons, have never been experimentally verified or in any sense detected. That is the main motive of the speculations to follow.
According to the explanations of modern science, an electro-magnetic wave "falling" in a gravity field gains energy, which is observed as an increase in its frequency, or its energy. The question poses itself as to where the limit of this increase would be, which of course would apply for corpuscular objects as well. Albeit the latter have a mass which increases (infinitely), and therefore some "limit" can be vaguely made out, it is not so with electro-magnetic waves. What is it, then, which prevents electro-magnetic waves from reaching infinitely great energy, as they do not show any "inertia", and is that really so (?), for it is obvious that the observable universe denies the a=g equation which stems from the Newtonian understanding of force (in other words, is gravity a force at all-Newton says yes, and Einstein says no). The fact that the principle of equality of heavy and ponderous mass implies an infinitely great force of gravity, by which an object whose speed equals that of light attracts its surroundings, and which is also denied by the observable universe, is also very interesting.
These are the main reasons which lead to an idea that a gravity force which in the sense of General Relativity Theory changes the geometry of spacetime, MUST depend on the velocity as well (which is demonstrated in a separate paper " analogies of kinematics to electro-magnetism"). And that is not all. According to the General Relativity Theory, if the mass of an object approaches an infinite value, then the "time" on the surface of the object also approaches zero. Therefore, the theory itself points to the fact that gravitational acceleration is in reverse proportion (not in the sense of direct proportion) to the value we have described by the term "time". Keeping in mind the structure of the EOU Model, a proportion in the quantitative sense makes it likely to suppose some kind of "proportion" in the qualitative sense, which leads us to an idea that the force of gravity can be described by a kind of projection in the classical geometry sense, or as an emanation of some "more primary" force into our three-dimensional world, in an existential sense.
This idea is in complete accordance with the model. Let us examine a force, which represents a "cross-section" of a four-dimensional structure, where the three-dimensional quality is present in the area represented by a circle, and the fourth dimension is illustrated by the straight line, which contains the radius. We observe the following:
1. The projection of vectors Fpr and Fod (representing a force of "attraction" and "repulsion" respectively) onto the curvature radius is identical, regardless of their being of opposite directions.
2. The intensity of vector G depends not only on the intensities of vector Fpr (Fod) but also on its curvature, i.e. on the radius R.
3. The intensity of vector G is much smaller than that of vector F, by R, and is decreasing as the value of R increases.
The structure presented in the picture is in complete accordance with the structure of the Unity, where the circle line represents our three-dimensional world whose curvature radius (in the direction of the fourth dimension ) equals R. Our main assumption is: the force of gravity is (just) a projection of the electromagnetic force vector into our three-dimensional world. Let us clarify this.
It is well-known that the lines of force in the case of electro-static force are pointed away from the centre of electrical charge in all directions at the same time, like the spines of a sea urchin, where their direction depends on whether the charge is "positive’ or "negative". Keeping in mind the global homogeneity of the Unity, we can, quite realistically, suppose that the same image can be "seen" in the four-dimensional sense. According to our assumption the force of gravity is no new and special force, but only a projection of the component of the electro-magnetic force vector which exerts its influence in the direction of the fourth dimension, probably with the same intensity and direction it possesses in the other (our) three dimensions, into our world, where it is of a significantly smaller intensity and with the same direction of influence whether it has been initiated by a positive or a negative electric charge1. Moreover, the "something" that we termed a (not really defined) "primary" force, we can now precisely define as an ELECTRO-WEAK force, whose emanation we observe in the "form" which is suitable to the state ("geometry") of spacetimematter and our position as observers.
How can the validity of these assumptions be verified? One of the ways is, for example, to measure the ratio of the mass and the electrical charge of an electron. In keeping with statement 3, this ratio should change successively with spatial-expansion. The main problem is the unreliability of most relevant elements, which it is necessary to "measure". Let us, therefore, verify these assumptions through an analysis of insights we have reached.
As we all know, the force of gravity is the weakest force in nature. It is around 10-38 times weaker than an electro-magnetic interaction. Here we must mention the following: We all have a sensory feeling for the intensity of a force. If it is one force, the qualitative indicator of its intensity is very easily obtained if we express all values as units of measurement. Then the ratio also offers information on the intensity of force. If we compare two forces, the numeric value of the intensity of force will depend on what units we have adopted for measuring certain values and therefore, in comparisons non-dimensional constants2 are used.
Our greatest problem is how to determine the angle f (on the picture), as we are comparing two values of totally different kind. The only thing that we can use as at least some kind of an indicator of the "curving" structure of spacetimematter (in ‘our’ part of the Unity) is the ratio between mass and electrical charge. For an electron, the ratio is: 9.1* 10-31 / 1.6* 10-19 = 5.68* 10-12 (Kg/C). If we accept the intensity of this ratio as a rough estimate of the value of angle f (as here indisputably sin f = f ), then the projection of that ratio in our ‘space’ must be Run (the Radius of the Universe) times smaller, and we get 5.68* 10-12 / 1.42* 1026 = 4*10-38 (Kg/mC). The result we have obtained is difficult to explain logically in the dimensional sense, as we are dealing with a ratio of "non-related" values and can easily be "corrected", e.g. by introducing some constant of "proportion", but that is neither our intention nor our aim. We are interested only in the intensity of the "projected ratio" anyway, and that ratio, as we can see, has a value incredibly close to the (above-mentioned) value obtained in a quite different (scientifically verified) way.
Regardless of the speculative character of this text, we are of the opinion that the force of gravity should be understood more in the sense of Einstein’s explanation- as a geometrical quality of ‘spacetimematter’ concrete part of the Unity, than as one of the fundamental forces of nature. Finally, even the nuclear force is explained as a ‘mere’ manifestation of a strong force in the complex conditions at work in the core of an atom (B. Lalovic).

Tesla`s non-Hertzian waves

Another way to test our assumptions on the multi-dimensional structure of the Model is to apply it to an attempt at explaining the so-called "non-Hertzian" waves of Nikola Tesla. For, it is known that Tesla fought hard to point out and prove that his invention (wireless energy transmission) was quite different from the conventional transmission, which uses "Hertzian waves", a fact which is very often skirted in official explanations.
In David Peat’s book "In Search of Nikola Tesla" (transl. published "U traganju za Nikolom Teslom/Popularna nauka/klub NT", 1996), there is an article by Nikola Tesla, where Tesla describes his first experiments of wireless transport, conducted in Colorado Springs. In order to avoid ambiguity we include his record of this:

"...It was July 3-that date I shall never forget-when I obtained the first decisive experimental evidence about a truth of the greatest importance for the progress of mankind. Electrically charged clouds were gathering and thickening in the West, and near the end of the day a furious storm spent its anger on the surrounding peaks, continuing at great speed across the plateau. Long and heavy discharges happened at almost regular time intervals. My observations were made much easier by this, and they contributed to the correctness of my previous experiences. I was prepared to use my instruments quickly. The receiver was properly set, and it showed weaker and weaker effects as the storm moved away, until they completely disappeared. I watched with great excitement and expectation, and really, the effect soon reappeared, growing stronger and stronger, and after it had gone through the maximum it gradually weakened and disappeared. Many times, in regular intervals, the same effects repeated until the storm, which was obvious from a simple calculation, moving at a constant speed, had moved to a distance of 300 km. Not even then did these unusual effects stop, but they continued to appear with unabated intensity"…"Although it had seemed impossible, this planet, despite its huge size, acted as a conductor of finite dimensions. The immense importance of this fact for the transmission of energy by my system became clear to me at once..."

At that time, Tesla, just like all then and present-time interpreters of these experiments, concluded that electrical impulses caused by the storm can travel great distances through the Earth, and threw himself into new experiments of "Wireless Transmission of Electrical Power" with great zest...
From the aspect of the EOU Model, this Tesla’s conclusion in not essentially wrong, but it is still not sufficiently precise. For, the only (then, just like now) scientifically explained and verified ‘waves’ by which electro-magnetic energy is transmitted are the "Hertzian" electro-magnetic waves, described in detail by Maxwell’s formulas. Their speed through all possible environments is quite known. In view of that, and the size of the Earth, the time interval between the repeated effects should be in the range of a part of a second, while it is really full 28 (twenty-eight) minutes (?)! How can this be explained by travelling "through the Earth", when an electro-magnetic impulse would in the same time cover the distance of over 500.000.000 (five hundred million) km, while the radius of the Earth is "only" 6.380 (six thousand) km...
All possible explanations of such long "delay" can hardly stand up to the test as official science is unable to find any kind of interaction which can lead to the loss of photons’ energy without affecting their direction (the so-called "braking up" of light, which is obvious from the standpoint of common sense, but hard to accept within the framework of electro-dynamics).
In our opinion, Tesla was aware of this problem, and that is the very reason why he insisted that his invention was not based in "Hertzian" waves. In truth, he was both right, and he was not. As we shall see below, this only seems to be a contradiction. For, according to our Model, the Universe and all "objects" in it, where the Universe itself is just one of the "objects" inside the Unity, are beyond doubt multi-dimensional and enclosed in the "spacetimematter" sense, which is in complete accordance with the General Relativity Theory. What we stress here is the fact that this enclosedness is also assumed for the so-called fourth dimension, which we usually call "time". According to the Model (and Einstein’s views) it is an INSEPARABLE and quite equal "part" of the spacetimematter whole. This interpretation of the structure of the Unity makes it possible for us to assume that the Earth not only deforms "space" by its mass (as Einstein’s ideas are usually interpreted- in the gravitational sense), but it also deforms the entire multi-dimensional structure of the Unity, enclosing it in (at least) four dimensions!
A description of the multi-dimensional structure of the Unity implied by the Model demands a lot of explanation, but for on this occasion let us say, in the most simplified manner, that the fourth dimension (which is vertical to all three of "our already existing ones") has the direction which can most approximately described by the words "from the inside out" (and the other way around). In analogy to the fact that "a man with a multi-dimensional sight could see the back of his own head", as Einstein joked on an occasion, explaining the enclosed quality of "space" (in the three-dimensional sense), according to the Model, due to the enclosed quality of the fourth dimension, an electro-magnetic impulse sent "outwards" should return "inside", and thus, in the spatial sense, return to the same "place" that it was sent from, but to another "place" in the multi-dimensional sense, i.e. be "dislocated" in the fourth dimension, or, to put it in a simpler and to us more comprehensible way, return after a certain time interval...
Our subjective experience inside the (whether we admit it or not: three-dimensional + time) world is only a rough projection of a state-event from the multi-dimensional objective reality. That is the root of our problems in communication with Nature. Although the EOU Model is based on assumptions (as all other cosmological theories), it still enables us to " catch a glimpse of" the unimaginable depths of the Unity, from the Universe to human mind...
In this concrete case, according to the Model, Tesla’s non-Hertzian waves are in fact Hertzian waves after all (the only kind that exists), but they were moving "outside", that is, on the other side from our "inside", where their "path" is much longer, and the delay is therefore incomparably longer than the one expected for the motion "inside". Without further explanations, we can say that the meaning of quantification has been "expanded" to the whole of the Unity (and thus to "time" as well), from which we get the formula T2 t = 10 –66. To put it simply, in relations of something "that is", and that is "inside", as philosophers would term it, and something that is "outside", on the "other side" from our "inside", the terms of "path traveled" and "wavelength" are completely equivalent in the same sense in which the energies of objects, expressed as mc2 and hn are also equivalent, and moreover, according to the Model, are identical. Let us now try to explain Tesla’s experiment using the assumptions of the Model, where the terms of linear space and time (which, in reality (?), exist only in some really locally-limited conditions) should be replaced by the corresponding terms in the general Theory of Relativity.
In our attempt to give Tesla’s non-Hertzian waves a realistic and acceptable rational explanation, let us use the Model. The curvature of spacetime is defined foremost by the presence of the Earth, whose mass is 6* 1024 kg. This mass has the corresponding Compton’s wavelength of 0.37* 10-66 m, from which we get t = l c / c = 1.23* 10-75 s. Due to the curvature of the multi-dimensional structure the corresponding time (or "path" for an ‘out there’ observer) on "the other side" is "longer" by the ratio of the radius of the Universe that it has "now" in the fourth dimension and the radius it has "now" in the third dimension, (and which would, according to the Model, be equal when the (Eternal Oscillating) Universe entered the state of black hole. Therefore, the "real" and for the observers "out there", realistic ‘time-path’ is "longer" by: RIV / RUN = 1.5 * 1029 / 1.42 * 1026 = 1056 times (see endnotes 3), and it has the value (here, of course, taken only as a scalar) of: 1.23*10-75 * 1056 = 1.29* 10-72 sec. Taking into consideration the already mentioned equivalence of "path" and "time" assumed by the Model and their relationship of "this-here-inside" to "that-there-outside", the value of the time interval as a "kind of a projection" of the length of the "path" traveled "on the other side" into ‘our reality’ is: T = ( 10-56 / t )1/2 = ( 10-66 / 1.29* 10-72)1/2 = 880.45 sec. This number represents what we should, according to the Model, experience as the "delay". As we can see it is 14.67 minutes. The time experimentally determined by Tesla is slightly longer, but the difference is really negligible in view of the fact that the size of the Universe, its age, and especially its mass, remain, in spite of the great efforts invested by science, more speculative than scientifically confirmed values. On the scale of some hundred billion (1017 sec) years, as many as several thousand years would seem as negligible time intervals. This only makes the correlation between electromagnetic waves moving, according to the Model, "on the other side", and Tesla’s non-Hertzian waves greater and more important.
At the end of this section we can mention, that same effect should be produced by other Unity "objects" too. As we know (EOU model), theoretical vallue of number k for earth is k = -5. Next successive "superior" object is that one (k = -6) whose mass is about m = 10-5.2*k = 1.58*1031 kg. By procedure identical as for earth gravity-deformation influence, we obtain "latency" of 508197 sec. or, respectively, aboyt 140 hours, what is not un-measureable for one who really wont to discover "truth"...

Quant teleportation

We can test just how well founded this explanation is, by applying the same mechanism to another of nature’s mysteries, known as the EPR effect. Let us recall a few things. The whole point is in that, two (sub-atomic) particles which have once been in an interaction, can INSTANTANEOUSLY react to what happens to the other particle, their partner, thousands of years later, when they are at a distance of several light years. In its classical interpretation, the Theory of Relativity ‘disallows’ any interactions at a speed greater than that of light, and we will never be able to understand this event using the usual interpretation of the quant theory either. Therefore a concept of Einstein-Rosen’s bridge was introduced into science, as some kind of a special ‘sub-space’, with mostly undefined characteristics, but still making the "instantaneous" exchange of information between particles possible...
The Model is much more specific. According to the Model of the Eternally Oscillating Universe, the speed at which an object is moving, and which is to us ‘on the inside", i.e. observed from this side of the ‘luxon wall", greater than that of light, to an observer ‘on the other side’ is lower than the speed of light. Vice versa applies as well, of course, and so it follows that, the interaction of objects, which to us, seem to be interacting "on this side" (where they can even be ‘stationary’), actually takes place at an (infinitely) high speed ‘on the other side". And there’s more. There is no reason why the particles we see as (two) separate ones should not be one and the same, seen in a multi-dimensional sense, naturally. In any case, the Model does not require the introduction of any special "spaces’ which are not a part of us, or whose part we are not, that are already quite familiar as an integral part of the Unity.
In December 1997, the news4 went around the world that the scientists of a lab in Innsbruck had successfully performed the first quant teleportation of a photon, to a distance of one meter. The explanation for the experiment was that they had "broken up" a quant of light on one spot and ("instantaneously") put it together in another point in space…Still, the mechanism of this action does not have a satisfactory explanation, all the more so, as science denies the existence of a real mass of the photon, because according to the classical interpretation of the relativity theory, the speed of light, whose chief carrier it is, would then be impossible for it to reach, which is paradoxical. The existence of matter in any corpuscular form without a corresponding mass is even more contradictory (this is analogous to proposition about existence some electromagnetic wave without frequency (?), what sounds "strange", while postulate about corpuscle without mass, we accept as quite (?) correct), and the ‘breaking up’ of something that possesses no really measurable dimensions becomes really difficult to grasp...
From the aspect of the Model of the Eternally Oscillating Universe, the experiment is in total "inverse" proportion to those conducted by N. Tesla. His attempts at "wireless transmission of energy" using non-Hertzian waves, according to the Model, can also be understood as moving or transporting "objects" (in the sense of energy), even as a kind of ‘quant teleportation", but the experiment conditions were different, and so were the obtained results-while the mechanism is completely THE SAME. In Tesla’s experiments "the events" had the same "spatial" coordinates, while the (so-called) "time" coordinates differed (by 28 minutes). In the Austrian scientists’ experiments in Innsbruck (for example), the "time" coordinates of the event are (almost) identical (quant teleportation takes place ‘instantaneously’), while the "spatial" ones differ (by 1 m). Let us therefore apply the same mechanism and test whether the structure of the Unity, assumed by the Model, is supported through the "similarity" of these events and their "structural agreement".
It is well-known that the average energy of a photon, or according to the model, "an object from the middle of the optical spectre" with the wavelength of 5*10-6 m, has the corresponding Compton’s wavelength of 1.35 *10-4 m, whose corresponding "mass" is then mf = 1.6 * 10-38 kg and the radius of this "object" is then 1.5*10-21m. "The breaking up" and "putting together" of a photon can be explained by saying that the experiment had in fact disturbed the energy content of the photon as a "stable object", and his independent return into his basic balance, and according to the Model space-time-energy-resonant, state. Since, according to the Model, the entire structure of the Unity and not just energy is quantified, the exchange of energy must be such as to provide for the photon’s "departure" to the "other" side (outside) where it is ‘visible’ as a particle with ‘mass’ mf and "radius" rf The minimum path travelled in the resonant-energetic sense (that would correspond to the minimum "excessive" received energy, in an analogy to an electron’s "jump" to a higher atom layer and its return) would have to be on the scale to correspond to the "stationary" mass of the photon (on the "other" side) and its ‘resonantly’ corresponding radius. The corresponding "time" (duration) of the teleportation would thus have to be rf / c = 5* 10-30 sec. The "time-path" seen from the "other" side is, as we have already mentioned 1056 times "longer", so we obtain ttel = 5*10-30 *1056 = 5.28* 10-27 sec (or, stelmin = 1.6* 10-18 m). If we translate this time into our reality we obtain T = (10-66 / t )1/2 = 1.37 * 10-20 s, which makes it clear just why the teleportation is "instantaneous". The path travelled we can obtain in the same manner, in an "inverse" way, but as in relations between ‘there-outside’ and ‘here-inside’, the corresponding radius of an "object" and its corresponding wavelength change places, the path travelled "there", measured from ‘here’ can be most simply (and most precisely) obtained by multiplying the Compton’s wavelength of an "average" photon (which we measure directly "here") by, naturally, RIV / RUN =1056 times. The same event, and let us describe it as a ‘dislocation of the photon by its own size’ should thus, in our real world, be seen as (let’s say) INSTANTANEOUS "dislocation" of the photon by (d=2R) 3*1.35*10-4 * 1056 = 0.28 meters. The result we obtained is really not identical to the value of 1 meter, but keeping in mind the scale on which the ‘translation" takes place, it is amazingly precise.

Faster then light

Just how close the basic assumptions of the models expounded are to reality we can also test using the so-called FTL (Faster Than Light) experiment of Prof. G. Nimtz and his assistants.
According to the classic interpretation of the Theory of Relativity, the speeds exceeding the speed of light are absolutely "impossible" (due to the increase in mass, for example). At best, as a result of mathematical operations, imaginary values are obtained [for example, "time" obtains the value of a square root of a negative number (?)], to which our mind, as a "metaphor device" is incapable of associating any similar (or at least partly related) concepts from the sphere of real values, so their real meaning remains quite out of reach for our mind.
With a small modification in the understanding and interpretation of the values present in Lorentz's transformations, in keeping with hypothesis 3 exposed in The Model of Quantified Energy Density, we obtain rather correct and, the most important, not imaginary but quite real values, by using the same mathematical formulas.
Let us demonstrate this on a concrete example.
In one of his experiments, using a special device with pronounced quantum tunnel features (with the same effect on microwaves as two slightly apart prisms have on the light), professor G. Nimtz and his associates (Cologne University) managed to realize the transmission of signals at a speed exceeding almost five times (4.7*c) the speed of light. In this experiment, the length of the "tunnel", or the energy barrier was: d = 0.1142 m. This path an electromagnetic wave with a frequency: f = 8.7 GHz, or wavelength of: l = 0.0345 m, going through "free space", ought to travel in (t = d/c) 3.819*10-10 s. However, at the exit of the quantum tunnel, they obtained quite distinguishable sounds of Mozart's 40-th Symphony that the carrier was sound modulated with, BEFORE it was "possible" (?!), that is, after only 81*10-12 sec, or 81 pico seconds, instead of the expected 38 nanoseconds ?!
According to the model of the Eternally Oscillating Universe this is a quite acceptable event. The explanation is similar as in the case of the quantum teleportation of the photon, as these are basically the same event.
The EOU Model considers the photon both a particle and a wave (dualism), where the "form" of its manifestation depends exclusively on the speed of its motion. We offer the following interpretation of the experiment:
Due to the impossibility of passing "on this side", due to the existence of the energy barrier, the photons "tunnel" the barrier as some sort of a "restricted area", moving "on the other side", where the concepts of wavelength and the corresponding radius of the (same) object change places. An electromagnetic wave with a frequency of: f = 8.7 GHz , or wavelength: l = 0.0345 m corresponds to Compton's wavelength of: lc = l / (1 v2 / vmax2)1/2 = 0.0345 / (1 - c2/vmax2)1/2 = 0.0345 / 0.0371 = 0.93 m. This value corresponds to the path travelled "over there", at the maximum possible speed in nature, of course, "seen" from this side, whose value is, according to J. C. Maxwell: vmax = 3*108 m/s. In that case, the time, measured from over here, should be "the path travelled over there" seen "from here", that is, shorter by 1056 times (or RIV / RSV) divided by the speed of the waves' motion measured "over here" (an experimentally established value for c), therefore, ttun = 0.93 / (1056*2.99*108) = 2.94*10-12 sec. As we can see, the value obtained is quite different from the experimentally measured one (81*1012 sec), but keeping in mind the fact that the calculation uses the values of (only approximately determined) radiuses of the Universe in the "direction" of its III (RSV or IV (RIV) dimension (the Model of EOU), the obtained result is simply unbelievably correct.
The above explanation was given in the form which makes it possible to make numerous analogies to the explanation given for the quantum teleportation. Otherwise, a similar result can be obtained in a simpler manner if the same event is observed "from the other side". Then the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave of 8.7 GHz measured from "here" can be considered as Compton's , so that now lc = 0.0345 m. It has a corresponding wavelength of l = lc * 0.037 = 1.27*10-3, with it associated time in which the wave spreads: t = l /c = 4.2*10-12 sec. Here we can observe that a (complicated) concept of "the quantum tunneling of the energy barrier" was replaced a much more simple concept of associated (that is, very concrete and real) time. The results obtained by "looking" from both "one" and "the other" side are very close in value, which confirms the validity of our hypotheses. And not only that. They offer us the possibility of a rough, but simple, determination (expected values) of the "tunneling time" as:
ttun = (1/f)(1-c2/vmax2)1/2 = 0.037 / f (sec), where f is frequency of the carrier wave used in experiment.
Using the basic assumptions of the Energy density quantification model and the relations established, the length of the energy barrier ("tunnel" length) can be understood as "resonantly corresponding" to a given carrier wave, in the same sense as, for example, l/4 (receiver) antenna for an electromagnetic wave of a corresponding frequency. A simple calculation demonstrates that its value should be roughly ten times (1056*0.037/4 = /about/ = 10) greater than the wavelength of the carrier wave. In the experiment analyzed here, the length of the energy barrier varied from o.4 m to 0.1142 m, which is very close to our estimate (d = 10l = 10*0.0345 = 0.345 m), but this did not affect the interval of "tunneling time". Simultaneosly, in the course of different measurements that was proportional to reciprocal value of the microwave frequency, what is in complete accordance with our suppositions. Essentually, that means that "Tunnel" express "resonantly-energy" quality for "to-him-appropriate" frequency spectrum from wave package (group-phase velocities...), and in concordance with that, we can define some "for-used-frekvency-recommended" "resonantly-corresponding" tunnel length:

dtun.rec = 10l (m)

what is identical "energy-resonant" microwave wavelength, and in accordance with that we can determine expected value for tunneling time:

ttun,ex = (dtun,rec / c)*0.037 = (10l / c)*0.037 = 0.37 / f (sec).

Check exposed ideas using data from previous experiment again. For f = 8.7 GHz, l = 0.0345 m, and we obtain: dtun,rec = 10*0.0345 = 0.345 m, and ttun,ex = 0.37 / (8.7*109 = 42*10-12 s. As we know experimentaly measured tunneling time was 81*10-12 sec, by used tunnel length of 0.1142 m!
Microwave with frequency of 9.15 GHz (or l = 3.28 cm) was used in the another experiment. By ours hyphotesis, recommended "tunnel length" is: ttun.rec = 10*l = 10*0.0328 = 0.328 m, and expected tunneling time is equal: ttun.ex = 0.37 / (9.15*109) = 40.43*10-12 sec. or 40,4 picoseconds. Experimentally measured value for tunneling time is 125 picoseconds, with used tunnel length of exactly 30 cm. As we can see, estimated values are in same order with experimentaly measured, what is over each expectation because clasical theories, unless some imaginary values, reasonly inexplicit formulations (e.g. corpuscle without mass ???) cant provide none, even approximate value.
However, the best verification of exposed ideas, coming from the same experiments group, but experiments perform with optical waves.
According basical postulate of Energy density quantification model (hypothesis 3), we have to disunite notion of experimentaly measured lght speed (as corpuscles yet reachable velocity) and her theoretical value (establish by J.C.Maxwell), and which are identified until now.
This is (only) the best mode to Lorentz-s transformations remain unrevised, but "image" we get, on that way, is substantially-essencely changed. Namely in the point v = c, we have not infinite (corpuscle) mass (etc...) but FINITE values, and what is overriding, in the part from point v = c to point v = vmax, which object reach not-until infinitelity, observer "from the other side" of "luxon-wall" see everything vice-versa in regard on us, from "this side". (In a sense of OTR, this "other side" is regard to distances larger than about 1.42*1026 m) ...
Applying classical TR relations on FTL experiments (e.g.) we cant get nothing real, nor anything conceivable. Using given relations without understanding essence and signification of exposed Model, we can receive uncorrect results, as follow. For "some" microwave with frequency of: f = 2*1014 Hz, we obtain: dtun,rec = 10*l = 1.5*10-5 m, and ttun,ex = 0.37 / f = 1.85*10-15 m, what is quite uncorrect. Nevertheless, Model obtrude as obligation to disunite notion c and vmax, and considering fact that ("some") microwave Compton-s wavelength was obtained as l / 0.037, then, in the event of optical wave which already propagate with "light-velocity" (for light v = c quite certainly), I.E. his wavelength already IS Compton-s, what means that appropriate wavelength value we obtain by same, but reversed relation. Consistent already pleaded statements, in concrete circumstances observing "from that side", becouse easyly procedure and trivially relations as alreadu is demonstrated, resonant-adequate energy-barrier length (tnnel length) we obtain likewise in the sense as l / 4 (receiver) antenna, but in this case as: (1056 ("there" projected length is longer for RIV/RSV ...) / 0.037)*l /4 = 7135 l. According that, expected values for optical waves is:

dtun,rec = 7135 l (m), apropos,
ttun,ex = (dtun,pr/c)*0.037 = 240 / f (sec).

For optical wave frequency f = 2*1014 Hz (l = 1.5*10-6 m) now we obtain dtun,rec = 7135*l = 7135*1.5*10-6 = 0.010 m, apropos ttun,ex = 240 / f = 1.2*10-12 m. Almost fantastic, sounds that experimentally measured values are: ttun = 1*10-12 sec, with utilized tunnel length (forbidden zone) of 3 cm !
As we can see, the Model of EOU corresponds to the objective reality even in the spheres where the majority of contemporary theories are quite powerless.
Keeping in mind the 'depth" of time-space abysses we have peeked into, our results, to official science perhaps insufficiently precise, are still correct enough. What is even more important, they still make it possible to offer a real and reasonable explanation for facts, which thus become only apparently contradictory to TR and QT ...

Force of gravity as a projection of electro-weak force     Tesla`s non-Hertzian waves     Quant teleportation
Faster then light     Tiredness of light     Universe accelerate propagation     Black hole => a singularity ?

Tiredness of light

The Model's universality and it s applicability we can test on another experimentally confirmed and (using standard theories) hard to explain phenomenon.
On the basis of an analogy between electro-magnetism and kinematics (which is the subject of a separate paper), it can be demonstrated that bodies under the influence of the force of gravity DO NOT accelerate (or slow down) at a constant rate, as we normally (a = g) assume in practice, and as really happens at low velocities. In fact, from this formula, which represents an UNCHANGED, but only slightly differently formulated (taking into account the increase in mass according to the Theory of Relativity) Newton's Law of Inertia (through which he defined force), and all others to follow it, it follows that THE FORCE OF GRAVITY HAS A WEAKER EFFECT ON BODIES THAT MOVE FASTER.
In a less strict interpretation, based on observed, and in that paper expounded analogies, we can say that for all objects in nature with an OUTSIDE generator of force (such as a gravitation or electrical field…) the speed of light is possible to the maximum, as after reaching it (only in infinity, of course), acceleration equals zero, and the speed becomes a constant v=c, where the c (according to the hypothesis 3 of EOU) is slightly less than vmax. A combination of assumptions in connection with the Model of Eternally Oscillating Universe and the ideas explained in that paper, make it possible to explain the phenomenon of the so-called "tiredness of light"
The photon lies at the heart of this problem. According to Bohr, Heisenberg and Powley, the photon does not really exist along its entire path, and it is only visible when the wave encounters an obstacle. In contrast to them, Einstein, Broglie and Schroedinger maintained that the photon was a particle associated with waves along their entire path. A sequence of experiments proved the photon's existence in reality. This means that the photon, during its motion, (through its mass) must interact with matter (it is not precisely known how, but the interaction takes away some of the photon's energy), which should appear as the "braking" of the light when it is passing through zones with a higher density of matter. The problem is that even the most distant galaxies can be seen quite clearly, from which we conclude that an interaction of the photon and the gravity field has a very weak 'diffusion' as a result, which would lead to hardly any deviations. In other words, the interaction, which leads to the photon's energy loss, does not affect the direction in which it is moving. According to the Model, the speed of light is possible to achieve event with objects having a real stationary mass. In keeping with this the photons can also have a very real mass. According to a modified Newton's formula, the acceleration of such objects in a gravity field is very small (almost equal to zero, but still REAL). The same goes for moving in an opposite direction, when the acceleration assumes a negative symbol and becomes the SLOWING DOWN. Obviously, the photon's loss of energy is quite possible. On the other hand, in spite of pronounced relativistic effects, and a corresponding increase in "mass" and inertia of these (fast, and thus in the sense of energy, massive) objects, their sluggishness in the 'inverse' direction remains insignificant (with a direction that is difficult to change). In short, we have defined a 'mechanism' making possible exactly the kind of behaviour of the photon as it has been observed in practice...
This explanation may, at first glance, seem to violate the basic principle of the Relativity Theory, on the equality of heavy and ponderous mass, but the problem is still in the terminology and interpretation of the concepts we us to describe objective reality. For, the Model differentiates between the variables s (in the sense of the path travelled) and l (in the sense of the change gravitational potential, e.g.), so that s/l=1 only at low velocities. More details are given in a separate paper, and here let us just mention that the mechanism is similar in the classical interpretation of the relativity theory, for example in the contraction of length IN THE DIRECTION OF THE MOTION, and there is therefore no reason why the spatial deformations described by the relativity theory should not be accompanied by corresponding energy deformations, and thus also deformations in the sense of the work done, or FORCE, which we have already demonstrated on the example of a possible interpretation of the concept of gravity...

Universe accelerate propagation

That the EOU model is completely in harmony with Nature (or the other way around) can be seen from the following section. The main assumption of the model is a (periodical) changeability of all relevant factors of the Unity, and thus of the radius of the Universe as well, which can be seen from the graph. Whether the change is a sinusoid or certain phases are characterized by exponential or any other curves is difficult to say, but this is not a relevant factor for the structure of the model.
Still, it is beyond doubt that the Universe, (in view of its estimated age of around 1017 sec, and the duration of one of its phases of (eternal oscillation) of around 10-21 sec) is currently at the point of its motion (development) when it is quite realistic to expect that its radius (observed from our reality "at this time" or, at the point of for us- "now") is increasing according to a formula that should not even be roughly linear, but changeable, and even more, ACCELERATELY changeable (see the picture, where the "zero" moment of the so-called Big Bang in this model can be any of the function's minimums, or the middle of (one of) the interval(s) marked as "the white hole phase"). And while the 1998 news that the Universe was expanding, faster and faster 4 caused disbelief among the scientists, and after a critical analysis and its confirmation, shook the foundations of all existing cosmological theories, that news, as we can see in the picture below, fits quite nicely into the EOU model, as a completely "normal" and expected event, although nowhere, in to the Model exact mathematical relation isnt given.
Newertheless, it s quite obvious that Universe radius change curve, specially in the part where Universe is placed momentaly, is entirely doubtless concave form. Through geometry explanation, function differentiability offers us a possibility of tangent construction in some point of curve. In the physics sense, this fact indicate (by all means) on NOT-LINEAR Universe radius change curve, and its increase during "thime", wherefrom directly suceed possibility of accelerate Universe propagation, of course in this phase of its, else, Eternal Oscilating movement...

Black hole - (does not have to be/become ?) a singularity

According to the General theory of relativity, black holes ( ALL OF THEM, only some sooner and some later, depending on the quantity of matter they "absorb") MUST end their evolution as singularities, i.e. objects having a radius of exactly zero meters (R = 0 meters) ...
Such an object - mathematically quite realistic is simply inconceivable in real life and in objective reality. Moreover, the observable universe denies the existance of such objects, at the same time offering countless examples such as envisaged by our Energy density quantification model - these are REALLY existing Black holes, however not as singularities, but as (stable) objects, with definite mass quantity and (an extremely small but real) radius. We`ll try to explain our hypothesis by analising current theories and their modifications according to the Energy density quatification model.
As is well known, the formula for wave length (for example):

according to the Special theory of relativity is: l = l0 / (1-v2/c2)1/2 ...............(1), and
according to the General theory of relativity is: l = l0 * (1 + ( g M / R c2 ))...(2)

We know from mathematics that: 1 / (1-v2/c2)1/2 = 1 + (1/2)(v2/c2) - v4/c4 + (3/4)(v6/c6) - (1/3)(v8/c8) ..., and because all analysis take into account only the first two components of an array, since the influence of others is really of no significance, we shall do the same. Formula (1) therefore becomes:

l = l0 * (1+ (1/2)(v2/c2), hence, by comparison to formula (2) obviously:
v2 / 2 =
g M / R, and therefore:
v = ( 2
g M / R)1/2 ,

which represents the well known formula for the so called II Cosmic velocity, used to define the minimum "release" velocity, and this - assuming that v = c, is used to define the so called Schwarschild radius for a given mass M ( with the gravitation constant g ) of an object, as key values related to the notion of "black hole". According to our Hypothesis 3 of the Energy density quantification model, it is obvious that the Schwarschild radius can now be defined in TWO DIFFERENT WAYS:

1) as v = c, where c implies the experimentally measured value of light speed, and that is essentially what the notion of "black hole" really means. BUT, a black hole thus defined DOES NOT RESULT IN A SINGULARITY, (just as objects with real rest mass reaching such velocity, according to H3, do not have an infinitely large mass - as in the classic interpretation of the Special theory of relativity), and

2) as v = vmax , where vmax implies Maxwell`s theoretical value of light speed, which also defines the notion of black hole, but a slightly darker version of black hole, wich according to the General theory of relativity EVOLVES IN A SINGULARITY; this has been the cause of headaches for Einstein as well as for other physicists both in the past and in present times ...

As we can see, our hypothesis 3, viewed in the light of the General theory of relativity, helps us to explain today`s greatest enigma: how the existing (scientifically verified) black holes DO NOT EVOLVE INTO SINGULARITY, achieving endless gravitational potential and absorving everything aroand them ..., but continue to exist as real, PRECISELY in the form envisaged here under paragraph 1).
Regardless of a slight quantitative difference in the value of the Schwarschild radius under 1) and 2), (e.g. for the Sun R1) = 2968.55 m and R2) = 2964.44 m), the qualitative difference is ENORMOUS - black holes DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO result in singularities but can "evolve" in various ways depending on their interaction with the surrounding environment (for example, by "absorbing" surrounding matter they "grow" in time, increasing their Schwarschild radius BUT NOT TO INFINITY,..., NOR ARE THEY REDUCED to a singularity,..., as confirmed in the observable Universe), and it is of the utmost importance that is fully in compliance with the General theory of relativity, of course, taking into consideration our Hypothesis 3 ...

ENDNOTES

1   This can be compared to the so-called Coriolis's force, which does not appear "on its own", but as a side effect of another, main force, which is effective in complex conditions of motion. Its direction is vertical to the direction of the "main" force, and its intensity depends not only on the intensity of the main force, but also on the speed and "geometry" of the motion.
2   Non-dimensional constants which characterize the intensity of force of known interactions have the following values: electromagnetic (photon) = 1/137; strong (gluon) =1; weak (boson) = 10-13, and the weakest force in nature, gravity (graviton) = 2*10-39.
3    Let us just mention that this ratio is amazingly close (bearing in mind the enormous scale of sizes) to the mass ratio of the proton and the electron 1824), which points to a really extremely harmonious and "resonant" (which, in our opinion, is a concept very close to that of quantification) relationship among ALL objects inside the Unity described by the Model.
4   "Nauka kao bajka" ("Science As a Fairy-Tale") by V. Ajdacic, published by Zlatna Knjiga, Belgrade, 2000.