Dear Vladimir Fedorov,
Thank you for your kind comments. Having now read your essay I see that we agree on much. I agree that vortical action plays a much greater role than is commonly recognized, and also that the deBroglie model is the correct basis of QM. What you label "soliton potential wells of stability", I tend to think of as a 'self-sustaining soliton', and relate this to deBroglie waves induced by ultradense particle momentum. After the contest is over you might find time to look at The Nature of Quantum Gravity, which I think you will find interesting. But it does lead to a different model for the elementary particles than your model.
I believe that the density-based formulation of GR is a flat-space equivalent to curved space-time, which you seem to imply as well. However, you say that there are no particles with greater 'mass' then the electron, while I think that there are no particles with greater 'mass density' than the electron.
I am focused more on particles, so I cannot follow all your astronomical calculations, although I am impressed with the data set you have assembled and with your calculations. At this point I am still not entirely sure of your conception of gravity. In short, I agree with the essentials of vortical action, deBroglie-like solitons induced by particles, and gravity as fundamental, but our models of these particles diverge.
I think both of us wish to push mystical quantum mechanics in the direction of intuitive classical physics, which I address to some degree in my essay.
Thanks again for your comments and for contributing your ideas to the FQXi community.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman