If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 4/7/17 at 16:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Palmer Thank you very much for your detailed and well-intentioned...

**Donald Palmer**: *on* 4/7/17 at 7:28am UTC, wrote Dear Branco, I am not a physicist (I was trained in mathematics), so some...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 4/5/17 at 12:50pm UTC, wrote Thank you Vladimir Regards, Branko

**Vladimir Rodin**: *on* 4/5/17 at 9:17am UTC, wrote Dear Branco, I have already read for a long time your essay. Your approach...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 3/25/17 at 14:33pm UTC, wrote Hi Akinbo If you carefully read, explanation for the non-extended is: The...

**Akinbo Ojo**: *on* 3/25/17 at 12:20pm UTC, wrote Hi Branko, Thanks for your interesting contribution. Your essay brings...

**Yehuda Atai**: *on* 3/23/17 at 10:21am UTC, wrote Hi Branko Thanks. The two protons are not Identical, I also develop the...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 3/22/17 at 21:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Yehuda Atai Thank you for your comment. I also concluded on the...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**mono joli**: "thanks a lot for such a great topic. Scary Maze Games Basketball Legends..."
*in* The Race to Replace the...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Brendan Foster, Of course: “We Are All Connected .” My..."
*in* We Are All Connected

**Caroline v**: "Thanks for informing us about FQXi-sponsored workshop which aim was to..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Cat...

**Caroline v**: "thanks"
*in* Schrödinger’s Cat...

**Yelena Hopper**: "Training is the way toward encouraging learning, or the procurement of..."
*in* Wandering Towards a Goal:...

**Yelena Hopper**: "This article is such a pleasant and intriguing one, I'm exceptionally happy..."
*in* We Are All Connected

**Yelena Hopper**: "Pushing the points of confinement of hypothesis and creative energy in..."
*in* Review of “A Big Bang...

**George Manner**: "This is very interesting thing to know about Comment on hand"
*in* Multiversal Journeys'...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Our Place in the Multiverse**

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

**Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena**

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

**Watching the Observers**

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

**Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness**

Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

**Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?**

To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

FQXi FORUM

October 17, 2017

CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]

TOPIC: The Theory of Unity between the Whole and its Parts by Branko L Zivlak [refresh]

TOPIC: The Theory of Unity between the Whole and its Parts by Branko L Zivlak [refresh]

Abstract The theory is a mathematical interpretation of nature, bringing us to numerous predictions and accurate relations. It defines relations among several key physical constants. The proton shift, defined in my article written for the 2015 FQXi contest, is again defined and described here, with the use of different physical constants.

Retired meteorologist with experience in applied meteorology, climatology, computer science and ecology, continuously devoted to the accuracy of meteorological data. Zivlak represented his country at the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC) and the “Global Climate Observing System” (GCOS). In the recent years, Zivlak became interested in the issues related to the functioning of the Universe.

Dear Mr. Zivlak;

I don't understand how did you conclude that "the gravitational constant G is the product of a relation between the whole and its part." Could you please elaborate on this relation or equation!

However, I totally agree with your conclusion: that ("matter dominant Universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time.) and if I may add that the universe is continuous alternation between these two aspects.

Best Wishes

report post as inappropriate

I don't understand how did you conclude that "the gravitational constant G is the product of a relation between the whole and its part." Could you please elaborate on this relation or equation!

However, I totally agree with your conclusion: that ("matter dominant Universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time.) and if I may add that the universe is continuous alternation between these two aspects.

Best Wishes

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Yousef,

everything is the product of a relation between the whole and its part. So that's my theory is Relational.

The key question is whether the determination of the value of dimensionless Proton shift allows prediction.

Everything is much easier and more obvious when present in a natural system of units of measure, where the mass, radius and time cycle of the universe = 1, then c = 1, G = 1, so it can be said to represent the whole (whole = 1). All the rest: the mass of a proton, Planck value, all phenomena emerge from the whole, these are the parts.

It is obvious that in (17) representatives of the whole, c and G compared with the parameters of protons, or parts.

I did not know that ("matter dominant Universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time). I have it determine, as I calculate all other related parts to the whole, using the Cycle = exp(2pi) and proton shift.

I wish if you find a mistake in the equations or confirmed.

For better understanding, see my work on FQXi contest in 2015 and then some useful comments posted.

Best Wishes

everything is the product of a relation between the whole and its part. So that's my theory is Relational.

The key question is whether the determination of the value of dimensionless Proton shift allows prediction.

Everything is much easier and more obvious when present in a natural system of units of measure, where the mass, radius and time cycle of the universe = 1, then c = 1, G = 1, so it can be said to represent the whole (whole = 1). All the rest: the mass of a proton, Planck value, all phenomena emerge from the whole, these are the parts.

It is obvious that in (17) representatives of the whole, c and G compared with the parameters of protons, or parts.

I did not know that ("matter dominant Universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time). I have it determine, as I calculate all other related parts to the whole, using the Cycle = exp(2pi) and proton shift.

I wish if you find a mistake in the equations or confirmed.

For better understanding, see my work on FQXi contest in 2015 and then some useful comments posted.

Best Wishes

You're not trying to understand the essay.

Dear Branko Zivlak,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible mathematical constructs.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible mathematical constructs.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko L Zivlak

It is a Good essay.........

It is very correct statement you gave… “"matter dominant Universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time, ”

You combined Physical constants with mathematical constants nicely. I did not see your earlier papers; I don’t know how you derived these relations…

I want to ask few small doubts ….

-The relations you have shown are valid to how many digits accuracy..?

-Did you check them using a calculator or computer?

-Probably you will have to do numerical analysis to verify and cross check…

report post as inappropriate

It is a Good essay.........

It is very correct statement you gave… “"matter dominant Universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time, ”

You combined Physical constants with mathematical constants nicely. I did not see your earlier papers; I don’t know how you derived these relations…

I want to ask few small doubts ….

-The relations you have shown are valid to how many digits accuracy..?

-Did you check them using a calculator or computer?

-Probably you will have to do numerical analysis to verify and cross check…

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Gupta

First, Thank you and sorry on poor English.

About: statement of "dominant Universe“ - you can conclude from my Table in 2015. contest, but not at a first glance.

About: You combined Physical constants with mathematical constants nicely. –Everybodi combine e and 2pi in the numerous well known formulas but nobody except me combined exp(2pi) with Physical...

view entire post

First, Thank you and sorry on poor English.

About: statement of "dominant Universe“ - you can conclude from my Table in 2015. contest, but not at a first glance.

About: You combined Physical constants with mathematical constants nicely. –Everybodi combine e and 2pi in the numerous well known formulas but nobody except me combined exp(2pi) with Physical...

view entire post

Sir,

I am from India and my English is also poor, often I was given bad remarks because of my poor English

I appreciated your essay. It is good essay. I saw your comments on my essay and I will reply there.

About: Proton shift … I did not understand…

About: Witticism…. I did not understand…

About: … What is this unique structure that has the same orbital and rotation speed?... Compared with what? … I did not understand…

Can you please give web addresses of your old works…?

Best

report post as inappropriate

I am from India and my English is also poor, often I was given bad remarks because of my poor English

I appreciated your essay. It is good essay. I saw your comments on my essay and I will reply there.

About: Proton shift … I did not understand…

About: Witticism…. I did not understand…

About: … What is this unique structure that has the same orbital and rotation speed?... Compared with what? … I did not understand…

Can you please give web addresses of your old works…?

Best

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko

With an after thought, I am reproducing my reply here also, so that will come to your attention immediately....

My English is also poor, I am sorry for that…

Thank you for your comments, and for trying to understand Dynamic Universe model. Thank you for well esteemed comments… I did not reply on what you already agreed…..

1. About: Have you any value...

view entire post

With an after thought, I am reproducing my reply here also, so that will come to your attention immediately....

My English is also poor, I am sorry for that…

Thank you for your comments, and for trying to understand Dynamic Universe model. Thank you for well esteemed comments… I did not reply on what you already agreed…..

1. About: Have you any value...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Gupta

Thank you for your nice words.

I Understand your English very good.

3. About: No Homogeneity – Homogeneity is statistical tool. Then if you have better deterministic tool you do not need Homogenity. Of Course, Every statistic is uncertain. Incorrect use of statistics leads to erroneous conclusions. This does not mean that it should be dismissed in the absence of better tools.

5. About: No collisions between bodies; Boscovich J. R.: (a) "Theoria philosophia naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium", first (Wien, 1758) and second (Venetiis, 1763) edition in Latin language; (b) "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

7. About: No imaginary –Planck units also do not exist, but we are using them.

8. About: No differential and Integral - http://vixra.org/author/temur_z_kalanov

9. About: No General Relativity - General Relativity nobody understand, but there are something in GR that nobody grasp. Please look:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers

/View/6710

You will see that Lorentz factor, gama can be very big, as for proton.

Similary, in my Theory any structure has its ratio acording to Whole. So, the Lorentz factor (transformation) is missunderstood in Big Bang Theory.

More at your post.

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your nice words.

I Understand your English very good.

3. About: No Homogeneity – Homogeneity is statistical tool. Then if you have better deterministic tool you do not need Homogenity. Of Course, Every statistic is uncertain. Incorrect use of statistics leads to erroneous conclusions. This does not mean that it should be dismissed in the absence of better tools.

5. About: No collisions between bodies; Boscovich J. R.: (a) "Theoria philosophia naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium", first (Wien, 1758) and second (Venetiis, 1763) edition in Latin language; (b) "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

7. About: No imaginary –Planck units also do not exist, but we are using them.

8. About: No differential and Integral - http://vixra.org/author/temur_z_kalanov

9. About: No General Relativity - General Relativity nobody understand, but there are something in GR that nobody grasp. Please look:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers

/View/6710

You will see that Lorentz factor, gama can be very big, as for proton.

Similary, in my Theory any structure has its ratio acording to Whole. So, the Lorentz factor (transformation) is missunderstood in Big Bang Theory.

More at your post.

Regards,

Branko

Hi BLZ

I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay… “Distances,...

view entire post

I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay… “Distances,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

I read with interest your deep and interesting essay. You continue to study an important topic - the nature of fundamental constants and provided important ideas. calculations and conclusions on the issue of "part and whole", which is fundamental to basic science and understanding of the structure of our Universe.

Yours faithfully,Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I read with interest your deep and interesting essay. You continue to study an important topic - the nature of fundamental constants and provided important ideas. calculations and conclusions on the issue of "part and whole", which is fundamental to basic science and understanding of the structure of our Universe.

Yours faithfully,Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Branko,

I do not remember reading your previous essays. Perhaps I read them and don't recall doing so, or perhaps I simply did not read them.

I'm not sure what to write here. You are onto something, but I'm not sure what that something is. Your exp(2*pi) term is similar to the scalar term in my essay. In fact, in the ratio between the mass of the proton and the mass of the electron, I need to use a value of exp(pi).

You have a collection of interesting relations. But were they derived based upon an underlying principle or were they determined by fiddling with the various terms to find something interesting? If they were derived from an underlying principle, then it is better to present that principle first and then guide the reader through the development of the relations.

You use logarithms based upon base 2. This is very peculiar for Math and/or Physics. Almost everything is usually expressed using natural logarithms.

I'm not clear about your definition of cycles. If the term "c" represents the speed of light, then "y" is simply the inverse of a velocity. Or, you might intend for cy to be read together as an abbreviation for cycles. In either case, your usage of the word cycle is not consistent with everyone else's understanding of the word. Most of the readers on the site will understand a cycle to be an interval of 2*pi.

Proton shift itself is an empirical value. It is dimensionless, so you're ok there. But it requires a reference value and a magnetic field. The magnetic field is what produces the proton shift. The proton shift has a value dependent upon the magnetic field used rather than a single value. What you present appears to have a single value. Therefore, your understanding of the meaning for "proton shift" is not the understanding of meaning that readers will have.

BTW, you cannot have data that is more accurate than CODATA data.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

I do not remember reading your previous essays. Perhaps I read them and don't recall doing so, or perhaps I simply did not read them.

I'm not sure what to write here. You are onto something, but I'm not sure what that something is. Your exp(2*pi) term is similar to the scalar term in my essay. In fact, in the ratio between the mass of the proton and the mass of the electron, I need to use a value of exp(pi).

You have a collection of interesting relations. But were they derived based upon an underlying principle or were they determined by fiddling with the various terms to find something interesting? If they were derived from an underlying principle, then it is better to present that principle first and then guide the reader through the development of the relations.

You use logarithms based upon base 2. This is very peculiar for Math and/or Physics. Almost everything is usually expressed using natural logarithms.

I'm not clear about your definition of cycles. If the term "c" represents the speed of light, then "y" is simply the inverse of a velocity. Or, you might intend for cy to be read together as an abbreviation for cycles. In either case, your usage of the word cycle is not consistent with everyone else's understanding of the word. Most of the readers on the site will understand a cycle to be an interval of 2*pi.

Proton shift itself is an empirical value. It is dimensionless, so you're ok there. But it requires a reference value and a magnetic field. The magnetic field is what produces the proton shift. The proton shift has a value dependent upon the magnetic field used rather than a single value. What you present appears to have a single value. Therefore, your understanding of the meaning for "proton shift" is not the understanding of meaning that readers will have.

BTW, you cannot have data that is more accurate than CODATA data.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Simpson

You are an honest man, open mind. You say: "You are onto something," which means that you are on the first steps to understand my Theory on what I would like to thank. My formulas are derived based upon an underlying principle as described in my previous FQXi articles.

You say: „You use logarithms based upon base 2“.

But you know FQXi contest It From Bit...

view entire post

You are an honest man, open mind. You say: "You are onto something," which means that you are on the first steps to understand my Theory on what I would like to thank. My formulas are derived based upon an underlying principle as described in my previous FQXi articles.

You say: „You use logarithms based upon base 2“.

But you know FQXi contest It From Bit...

view entire post

Branko,

I use the value exp(pi) in one of my references wher I explore the ration Mp/Me. At the time I wrote the reference, I had not yet developed the 5-D model. If I were to do so now, the ratio would be presented as the ratio of two 5-D wave-functions with the proton wave-function shifted by a value of pi in each dimension.

Clearly, there is similarity between what you are thinking and what I am thinking.

Many thanks for the rating. I have also rated you with a medium to high value.

Best regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

I use the value exp(pi) in one of my references wher I explore the ration Mp/Me. At the time I wrote the reference, I had not yet developed the 5-D model. If I were to do so now, the ratio would be presented as the ratio of two 5-D wave-functions with the proton wave-function shifted by a value of pi in each dimension.

Clearly, there is similarity between what you are thinking and what I am thinking.

Many thanks for the rating. I have also rated you with a medium to high value.

Best regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Hi Branko, I get Eq.(17) = 0.000000574908201 using the CODATA values in your paper. This not a tricky calculation, so I wonder how you get 10^{-14} which is 7 orders of magnitude smaller. Maybe you are reporting the squared error? Considering that G or any physical constant is not that well determined, it seems unreasonable to claim such accuracy. Having said that, your hypothesis is supported to the extent allowed by the CODATA values.

I feel uneasy with the idea that physical constants are a consequence of mathematics, or that mathematics is a consequence of physics. It takes the mathematical universe concept too far in my opinion, but the possibility is interesting and should not be dismissed because of intuitive considerations. Your essay certainly fuels the imagination. - cw

report post as inappropriate

I feel uneasy with the idea that physical constants are a consequence of mathematics, or that mathematics is a consequence of physics. It takes the mathematical universe concept too far in my opinion, but the possibility is interesting and should not be dismissed because of intuitive considerations. Your essay certainly fuels the imagination. - cw

report post as inappropriate

Hi Colin,

Thank you for your careful reading my essay. Of course, any equation containing G will have a number of uncertainties of G, if used CODATA value.

In applications of my Theory, all formulas are in accordance with CODATA, with all significant CODATA digits. You can see in my papers that I check my relations through the CODATA history, with a great help of Hugh Matlock. For G see: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View

/5176. Thus, checking any theory is limited with a value of most accurately measured physical constant. It is currently the Rydberg constant. My Theory has passed the test with Rydberg constant. Someone may say, "OK, Eq. (17) is exact but some of the 4 physical constants do not represent what is claimed. For example: mp mass is not a proton, that is the mass between the proton and a neutron. "

Then him, need to find what it represents.

I'm not disappointed that my Theory is offline of the current mainstream scientists. It's enough for me that it is not contrary to Newton, Bošković, Planck and Einstein to some extent.

As you can see, none of the professors in the contest read my essay. Still less would read if it there are a large number of pages. Perhaps the best strategy is to publish only the results in various fields of physics, as in:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/V

iew/6773.

Now I apply Theory in cosmology.

Regards,

Branko

Thank you for your careful reading my essay. Of course, any equation containing G will have a number of uncertainties of G, if used CODATA value.

In applications of my Theory, all formulas are in accordance with CODATA, with all significant CODATA digits. You can see in my papers that I check my relations through the CODATA history, with a great help of Hugh Matlock. For G see: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View

/5176. Thus, checking any theory is limited with a value of most accurately measured physical constant. It is currently the Rydberg constant. My Theory has passed the test with Rydberg constant. Someone may say, "OK, Eq. (17) is exact but some of the 4 physical constants do not represent what is claimed. For example: mp mass is not a proton, that is the mass between the proton and a neutron. "

Then him, need to find what it represents.

I'm not disappointed that my Theory is offline of the current mainstream scientists. It's enough for me that it is not contrary to Newton, Bošković, Planck and Einstein to some extent.

As you can see, none of the professors in the contest read my essay. Still less would read if it there are a large number of pages. Perhaps the best strategy is to publish only the results in various fields of physics, as in:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/V

iew/6773.

Now I apply Theory in cosmology.

Regards,

Branko

It might have been better to assume Eq.17 = 0, then solve for G and see whether it fits within CODATA estimated error. I get G = 6.67383601e-11 which is about 0.000004e-11 off but well within the CODATA error, 0.0008e-11. In other words, Eq.17 produces the CODATA value for G with only 1/200 of the estimated error. This is similar to what you did using the Rydberg constant in the above-referenced 5176 paper.

I think what you are on to is not merely numerical coincidence. There is something powerful in the way your techniques can be applied - for instance, a thermodynamic derivation of the CMB temperature which I saw previously. It reminds me of some of the surprising results of dimensional analysis. The exponential basis, which allows for symmetry between the large and the small, seems to be essential. - cw

report post as inappropriate

I think what you are on to is not merely numerical coincidence. There is something powerful in the way your techniques can be applied - for instance, a thermodynamic derivation of the CMB temperature which I saw previously. It reminds me of some of the surprising results of dimensional analysis. The exponential basis, which allows for symmetry between the large and the small, seems to be essential. - cw

report post as inappropriate

Hi Colin,

Yes, I wrote Eq.17 = 0. Also I show that it is exact. But, if we use CODATA, error is e-7. As you show, if we relate to Rydberg constant, error is e-11. But I iven got error e-14 applaing one statistical trick. This is not numerical coincidence There are too many successful applications, it would be a coincidence. Secondly, it is obtained in a rational way. Third, does not require the introduction of unnecessary assumptions such as: dark matter, supersymmetry, the expansion of the universe, a singularity ... - zb

Yes, I wrote Eq.17 = 0. Also I show that it is exact. But, if we use CODATA, error is e-7. As you show, if we relate to Rydberg constant, error is e-11. But I iven got error e-14 applaing one statistical trick. This is not numerical coincidence There are too many successful applications, it would be a coincidence. Secondly, it is obtained in a rational way. Third, does not require the introduction of unnecessary assumptions such as: dark matter, supersymmetry, the expansion of the universe, a singularity ... - zb

Hi Branko,

Thank you for pointing me towards your essay. I enjoyed reading it. But I wonder if there is something still missing from Eq. 17? The units in your log function include G, which has units in kg. But this doesn't cancel out elsewhere. I would think when comparing it to the mathematical constants that it has to end up being dimensionless.

Nevertheless, you're likely on the right path. The mathematical constants are involved in the physical fundamental constants. I know you already reviewed our paper on this site due to your comments - thank you very much. Separate to this contest, I did some work on the fundamental constants to relate them to new wave constants. You might have interest in this work: Fundamental Physical Constants.

Good luck in the contest!

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for pointing me towards your essay. I enjoyed reading it. But I wonder if there is something still missing from Eq. 17? The units in your log function include G, which has units in kg. But this doesn't cancel out elsewhere. I would think when comparing it to the mathematical constants that it has to end up being dimensionless.

Nevertheless, you're likely on the right path. The mathematical constants are involved in the physical fundamental constants. I know you already reviewed our paper on this site due to your comments - thank you very much. Separate to this contest, I did some work on the fundamental constants to relate them to new wave constants. You might have interest in this work: Fundamental Physical Constants.

Good luck in the contest!

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Hi Yeff,

It cancel:

[c^4*l^2/G^2*m^2]=[m^4*s^-4*m^2/kg^-2*m^6*s^-4*kg^2]=

[m^6*s^-4/m^6*s^-4]=dimensionless

Regards,

Branko

It cancel:

[c^4*l^2/G^2*m^2]=[m^4*s^-4*m^2/kg^-2*m^6*s^-4*kg^2]=

[m^6*s^-4/m^6*s^-4]=dimensionless

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

I read with great interest your essay, only I am a sort of "blind" for formula's.

Your conclusion however is cristal clear to me.

Our relity is in my perception analogue (idea) and not granular, but thsi doesn't mean that an "idea" cannot have constituent "parts". Everything we think about is an aglomeration of parts leading to an answer. It is only "time" that is the reason of "experiece". The "field" unifying the parts can be consciousness. Wihout consciousness information is just chaos.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

I read with great interest your essay, only I am a sort of "blind" for formula's.

Your conclusion however is cristal clear to me.

Our relity is in my perception analogue (idea) and not granular, but thsi doesn't mean that an "idea" cannot have constituent "parts". Everything we think about is an aglomeration of parts leading to an answer. It is only "time" that is the reason of "experiece". The "field" unifying the parts can be consciousness. Wihout consciousness information is just chaos.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

There is no need to elaborate on the subject, analog or granular reality. Max Plank solved that.

Regards,

Branko

There is no need to elaborate on the subject, analog or granular reality. Max Plank solved that.

Regards,

Branko

Hello Mr Zivlak,

A very intersting general analyse.the whole and its parts indeed ,this potential and this kinetic corrélations.The constants are fascinatings.

god luck,all the best

report post as inappropriate

A very intersting general analyse.the whole and its parts indeed ,this potential and this kinetic corrélations.The constants are fascinatings.

god luck,all the best

report post as inappropriate

Hello Mr Dufourny,

Thanks, but no correlation in the essay. Everything is deterministic.

Please read the comments of Colin Walker.

Regards,

Branko

Thanks, but no correlation in the essay. Everything is deterministic.

Please read the comments of Colin Walker.

Regards,

Branko

Thanks Mr Zivlak,I am understanding indeed.The determinism is important about the causalities,that permits to predict in function of past analyses and causalities indeed on this time line.The prédictions, so if all is deterministic respecting the postulates,are determinsitic in logic.The universe follows this deterministic rationality.

Best

report post as inappropriate

Best

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Branko L Zivlak

I read your essay with pleasure, I found many interesting things. I thought over similar ideas in my work Femtotechnologies. step i atom hydrogen. http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0014v1.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264346914_FEMTOTEHN

OLOGII_PERVYJ_SAG_-_ATOM_VODORODA

Thank you for comment of my essay. Indeed, you are right. Formula (1) has a typo – sure, mass should be in numerator. Then the equation (7) is valid for a system of planet.

Regards,

Alexander Ilyanok

report post as inappropriate

I read your essay with pleasure, I found many interesting things. I thought over similar ideas in my work Femtotechnologies. step i atom hydrogen. http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0014v1.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264346914_FEMTOTEHN

OLOGII_PERVYJ_SAG_-_ATOM_VODORODA

Thank you for comment of my essay. Indeed, you are right. Formula (1) has a typo – sure, mass should be in numerator. Then the equation (7) is valid for a system of planet.

Regards,

Alexander Ilyanok

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Ilyanok

Thank you for comment of my essay. I have looked at your viXra paper. I think, there are not similar ideas with my essay.

Regards,

Branko

Thank you for comment of my essay. I have looked at your viXra paper. I think, there are not similar ideas with my essay.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko

You have got a lot of interesting relations between mathematical and fundamental physical constants. I am going on the some opposite ways, since I am trying in my works to get such relations issuing from conceptual ideas. However, your approach can be very useful sometime. I mean we can to find the desirable cause - conceptual interpretations by studying the discovered quantitative links between experimentally established constants. This happen with me, as example, when I have thinking why it must be: m(p)/m(e) =.. 6p^5 = 1836,...?

This pushing us to think that there must be 1) some form factor, or symmetry given by 6. There must be also 2) some geometric factor that gives number p ....etc. So, on this way we can get to the structure of proton etc that are presented in my papers.

Thus, your work is possible to evaluate as significantly only!

I hope my papers may be interesting for you also (see in refs).

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

You have got a lot of interesting relations between mathematical and fundamental physical constants. I am going on the some opposite ways, since I am trying in my works to get such relations issuing from conceptual ideas. However, your approach can be very useful sometime. I mean we can to find the desirable cause - conceptual interpretations by studying the discovered quantitative links between experimentally established constants. This happen with me, as example, when I have thinking why it must be: m(p)/m(e) =.. 6p^5 = 1836,...?

This pushing us to think that there must be 1) some form factor, or symmetry given by 6. There must be also 2) some geometric factor that gives number p ....etc. So, on this way we can get to the structure of proton etc that are presented in my papers.

Thus, your work is possible to evaluate as significantly only!

I hope my papers may be interesting for you also (see in refs).

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Kirakosyan

You say: I am going on the some opposite ways… You're wrong. I also try in my work to get such relations issuing from conceptual ideas. Maybe I was not clear with words, or you need to read my previous works. There is nothing outside the Whole and parts make up a whole, which is a concept in the title of the essay. I cannot imagine better concept.

Your m (p) / m (e) is not a good idea because it can be reduced to the problem to solve alpha and alpha is the most difficult task

(see http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View

/6772).

1) There are number 6 in my formula (17). You can also see 6 in exponent of formula (9) at article: http://vixra.org/abs/1312.0141

2) Cycle=exp(2pi) and cycle=2pi going to the proton in the formula (17). Note that first cycle is with capital C.

Regarding, the Higgs Boson (your essay). The problem is general, since particle does not lead to a solution. Towards solution are words of Ruđer Bošković:

"Prima elementa materiae mihi sunt puncta prorsus indivisibilia, & inextensa, ... "

Best regards,

Branko

You say: I am going on the some opposite ways… You're wrong. I also try in my work to get such relations issuing from conceptual ideas. Maybe I was not clear with words, or you need to read my previous works. There is nothing outside the Whole and parts make up a whole, which is a concept in the title of the essay. I cannot imagine better concept.

Your m (p) / m (e) is not a good idea because it can be reduced to the problem to solve alpha and alpha is the most difficult task

(see http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View

/6772).

1) There are number 6 in my formula (17). You can also see 6 in exponent of formula (9) at article: http://vixra.org/abs/1312.0141

2) Cycle=exp(2pi) and cycle=2pi going to the proton in the formula (17). Note that first cycle is with capital C.

Regarding, the Higgs Boson (your essay). The problem is general, since particle does not lead to a solution. Towards solution are words of Ruđer Bošković:

"Prima elementa materiae mihi sunt puncta prorsus indivisibilia, & inextensa, ... "

Best regards,

Branko

Branko, a great idea: “We cannot see the world as whole. But we can see the relationship between the whole and the parts." I should add that part of space move relative to other parts and it form a whole world. Our world is endless due to the movement of its parts. We see the world turning to us for their past events and we cannot see the world as whole. I will give you a high ball, when i learn to do it accurately

But here's the gravitational constant G is a coefficient which translates the inert mass expressed in kilograms in gravitational mass, expressed in M3/S2

Boris Dizhechko

report post as inappropriate

But here's the gravitational constant G is a coefficient which translates the inert mass expressed in kilograms in gravitational mass, expressed in M3/S2

Boris Dizhechko

report post as inappropriate

Dear Boris Dizhechko,

Your comment has been great. But when you say world I and many others believe the Earth (see my comment and response in Mr. Gibbs place). Universe is eternal and endless due to the movement of its parts. But in one point of time, the mass of universe and space are finite.

I would be grateful if you would have found a mistake in my formulas or methodology.

Best regards,

Branko

Your comment has been great. But when you say world I and many others believe the Earth (see my comment and response in Mr. Gibbs place). Universe is eternal and endless due to the movement of its parts. But in one point of time, the mass of universe and space are finite.

I would be grateful if you would have found a mistake in my formulas or methodology.

Best regards,

Branko

Dear Branko, for your formula, then this is your path and your choice where to begin your journey to reach your goal. I will not look for a fault with them, hoping that you're doing it right.

My way defines a New Cartesian Physic, is based on the equivalence of space and matter. I am a materialist and so I say that space is matter. All visible body, the planets, the stars are benchmarks that indicate the movement of the space. Physical space that moves, should be distinguished from a fixed geometric space.

The concept of moving space-matter helped me:

To convert the uncertainty principle Heisenberg in the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;

To reveal the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface space-matter;

To formulate the law of gravitation Lorentz;

Give the formula of the pressure of the Universe;

To reveal the essence of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. If you wish to join it, it is often necessary to communicate with me.

I wish you success!

Boris Dizhechko

◢

Отправить перевод

report post as inappropriate

My way defines a New Cartesian Physic, is based on the equivalence of space and matter. I am a materialist and so I say that space is matter. All visible body, the planets, the stars are benchmarks that indicate the movement of the space. Physical space that moves, should be distinguished from a fixed geometric space.

The concept of moving space-matter helped me:

To convert the uncertainty principle Heisenberg in the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;

To reveal the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface space-matter;

To formulate the law of gravitation Lorentz;

Give the formula of the pressure of the Universe;

To reveal the essence of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. If you wish to join it, it is often necessary to communicate with me.

I wish you success!

Boris Dizhechko

◢

Отправить перевод

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko

I posted on my forum a partial reply under your very interesting comments.

As soon as I finish the lecture of your essay, I will answer your questions.

Best regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I posted on my forum a partial reply under your very interesting comments.

As soon as I finish the lecture of your essay, I will answer your questions.

Best regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate

"The nature does not recognize our division into mathematics and physics. For the nature those two are the same, everything is the same."

This is a good message.

How did you find the relationship between maths and physics in your essay?

report post as inappropriate

This is a good message.

How did you find the relationship between maths and physics in your essay?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Gibbs

This is a google translation.

When I was a student I wrote a paper on the topic Classification meteorology, among the sciences. But meteorology did not exist among the sciences when my now deceased professor of meteorology (mentioned in the essay) was born 115 years ago. I want to say: the classification of sciences is human invention. Also, to make things easier for ourselves we invent dimensions, shape ... We also invent God. But, discovered the mathematical constant e, 2pi ... and in my essay exp(2pi), formula (17), do not care about our classifications. They are everywhere. They are just doing their mathematical work. Then, if you say that is all determined by mathematics, I remind you, pi is a transcendent number. Thus, the irrationality of mathematical and physical constants makes indeterminism. Coincidentally I just read an interesting and important essay about that stuff (James R. Akerlund) here on the contest.

Best regards,

Branko

This is a google translation.

When I was a student I wrote a paper on the topic Classification meteorology, among the sciences. But meteorology did not exist among the sciences when my now deceased professor of meteorology (mentioned in the essay) was born 115 years ago. I want to say: the classification of sciences is human invention. Also, to make things easier for ourselves we invent dimensions, shape ... We also invent God. But, discovered the mathematical constant e, 2pi ... and in my essay exp(2pi), formula (17), do not care about our classifications. They are everywhere. They are just doing their mathematical work. Then, if you say that is all determined by mathematics, I remind you, pi is a transcendent number. Thus, the irrationality of mathematical and physical constants makes indeterminism. Coincidentally I just read an interesting and important essay about that stuff (James R. Akerlund) here on the contest.

Best regards,

Branko

Dear Mr. Gibbs

I did not completly answered on your question at my forum.

How did you find the relationship between maths and physics in your essay?

This question can be answered in different ways.

Methodologically it is explained in my three FQXi essays.

Much more important means of explanation is through the process of scientific knowledge. But the process are...

view entire post

I did not completly answered on your question at my forum.

How did you find the relationship between maths and physics in your essay?

This question can be answered in different ways.

Methodologically it is explained in my three FQXi essays.

Much more important means of explanation is through the process of scientific knowledge. But the process are...

view entire post

Dear Branko,

Thank you for your post on my page.

As I have told you before, I completely agree with you that the whole and the parts are linked. But I also believe that you should try to simplify your formulae, at present they are quite confusing and I believe that a lot of your log2 and power of 2 are just cancelling out. Also, you seem to be giving a value to Mu that just makes all your results match exactly with existing constant.

In any case, carry on working on your theory, you are going in the right direction.

All the best,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your post on my page.

As I have told you before, I completely agree with you that the whole and the parts are linked. But I also believe that you should try to simplify your formulae, at present they are quite confusing and I believe that a lot of your log2 and power of 2 are just cancelling out. Also, you seem to be giving a value to Mu that just makes all your results match exactly with existing constant.

In any case, carry on working on your theory, you are going in the right direction.

All the best,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for the suggestions. I think this is the simplest and most reasonable Theory with a mathematical background. Just look at Newton's Principia, R. Bošković Naturalis Theoria ... or Einstein's work, those are quite hard to read. As I wrote in the essay:

„Note that in this article we will not have the mass of the Universe, Mu, since we will only deal with relations and only the well-known values of masses will be used.“

Thus, is not yours: “Also, you seem to be giving a value to Mu that just makes all your results match exactly with existing constant. Yust, read once more.

However, I will try to simplify it even more in the following article, and not to mention the mass and radius of the whole.

My log2 and power of 2 are essentially, not to cancel out (see Table at contest 2015).

Best regards,

Branko

Thanks for the suggestions. I think this is the simplest and most reasonable Theory with a mathematical background. Just look at Newton's Principia, R. Bošković Naturalis Theoria ... or Einstein's work, those are quite hard to read. As I wrote in the essay:

„Note that in this article we will not have the mass of the Universe, Mu, since we will only deal with relations and only the well-known values of masses will be used.“

Thus, is not yours: “Also, you seem to be giving a value to Mu that just makes all your results match exactly with existing constant. Yust, read once more.

However, I will try to simplify it even more in the following article, and not to mention the mass and radius of the whole.

My log2 and power of 2 are essentially, not to cancel out (see Table at contest 2015).

Best regards,

Branko

Hi Branko,

I find your approach interesting and has a mathematical-phenomenological approach.

You say:"The nature does not recognize our division into mathematics and physics. For the nature those two are the same, everything is the same."

I agree that there is a sub strata natural language behind and for all phenomena in nature.

See my essay : We are together, therefore I am" that explains how all is in the attributes of a Movement-Phenomenon in the ever continuous Present change.

With great exposure for us all.

Yehuda Atai

report post as inappropriate

I find your approach interesting and has a mathematical-phenomenological approach.

You say:"The nature does not recognize our division into mathematics and physics. For the nature those two are the same, everything is the same."

I agree that there is a sub strata natural language behind and for all phenomena in nature.

See my essay : We are together, therefore I am" that explains how all is in the attributes of a Movement-Phenomenon in the ever continuous Present change.

With great exposure for us all.

Yehuda Atai

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yehuda Atai

Thank you for your comment.

I also concluded on the basis of the relationship shown mathematically, as you:

„I noticed through my meditations that every phenomenon has an

end (finitude).“

Nothing is identical to it

„So, that every phenomenon, from a grain of sand to a human to a mosquito to a galaxy is a unique unity in multiplicity.“

„As the movement ends, often before its conclusion, new movements occur to continue the phenomenon.“

It would be good if my mathematical relationships essentially understood and applied to prove your views. In particular, questions about the inevitability of movement.

What do you think: Are the two protons identical?

Regards,

Branko

Thank you for your comment.

I also concluded on the basis of the relationship shown mathematically, as you:

„I noticed through my meditations that every phenomenon has an

end (finitude).“

Nothing is identical to it

„So, that every phenomenon, from a grain of sand to a human to a mosquito to a galaxy is a unique unity in multiplicity.“

„As the movement ends, often before its conclusion, new movements occur to continue the phenomenon.“

It would be good if my mathematical relationships essentially understood and applied to prove your views. In particular, questions about the inevitability of movement.

What do you think: Are the two protons identical?

Regards,

Branko

Hi Branko

Thanks.

The two protons are not Identical, I also develop the paradox of "identicals", Leibniz did it and others. More power to you attempting to use your mathematics for my perception of reality.

Thanks again

yehuda

report post as inappropriate

Thanks.

The two protons are not Identical, I also develop the paradox of "identicals", Leibniz did it and others. More power to you attempting to use your mathematics for my perception of reality.

Thanks again

yehuda

report post as inappropriate

Hi Branko,

Thanks for your interesting contribution. Your essay brings much food for thought.

I dispute this quote of yours from Ruđer Bošković:

*"The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points, ... "*

I tend to agree with the indivisible character but disagree that they are non- extended. An accumulation of non-extended points cannot produce a whole that is extended. To my relief, I see that you have yourself noted that non-extended things cannot be said to exist. What does not exist cannot make or add up to what exists. This may apply to space as well. For example, a line will be made up of a series of extended points.

The other area that you may want to rethink is the claim that non-extended things can have mass. This would make such objects have an infinite density! I doubt this can be possible.

These are the only two contentious areas. I agree with most of what you wrote.

All the best in the competition and I will be rating your essay right away,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your interesting contribution. Your essay brings much food for thought.

I dispute this quote of yours from Ruđer Bošković:

I tend to agree with the indivisible character but disagree that they are non- extended. An accumulation of non-extended points cannot produce a whole that is extended. To my relief, I see that you have yourself noted that non-extended things cannot be said to exist. What does not exist cannot make or add up to what exists. This may apply to space as well. For example, a line will be made up of a series of extended points.

The other area that you may want to rethink is the claim that non-extended things can have mass. This would make such objects have an infinite density! I doubt this can be possible.

These are the only two contentious areas. I agree with most of what you wrote.

All the best in the competition and I will be rating your essay right away,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Hi Akinbo

If you carefully read, explanation for the non-extended is:

The explanation is just like in the case of the barycenter in cosmology, where the collective mass of stars and planets moves as if the entire mass is in the barycenter, even though there does not have to be any real mass there.

Or, you could say that the barycenter is extended to all the solar system. But it does not matter. Also, it does not matter that in the opinion of some authorities, Bosković is the father of modern science. All that matters is, are my equations, correct?

So, I would be grateful if you would have found a mistake in my formulas or methodology.

Best regards,

Branko

If you carefully read, explanation for the non-extended is:

The explanation is just like in the case of the barycenter in cosmology, where the collective mass of stars and planets moves as if the entire mass is in the barycenter, even though there does not have to be any real mass there.

Or, you could say that the barycenter is extended to all the solar system. But it does not matter. Also, it does not matter that in the opinion of some authorities, Bosković is the father of modern science. All that matters is, are my equations, correct?

So, I would be grateful if you would have found a mistake in my formulas or methodology.

Best regards,

Branko

Dear Branco,

I have already read for a long time your essay. Your approach is very close to my understanding of the laws of nature, and some thoughts completely coincide with mine. Especially:

"The quantum character of phenomena is connected to the relations between the whole and its parts."

"Mass is piece of physical space which rotates has conserved energy of rotation."

"The matter is in constant motion, which can be described by cycles of different magnitudes"

Of course, I highly appreciate your paper.

Besr regards and good luck,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I have already read for a long time your essay. Your approach is very close to my understanding of the laws of nature, and some thoughts completely coincide with mine. Especially:

"The quantum character of phenomena is connected to the relations between the whole and its parts."

"Mass is piece of physical space which rotates has conserved energy of rotation."

"The matter is in constant motion, which can be described by cycles of different magnitudes"

Of course, I highly appreciate your paper.

Besr regards and good luck,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Thank you Vladimir

Regards,

Branko

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branco,

I am not a physicist (I was trained in mathematics), so some of your essay I can only attempt to get my head around. Based upon some other comments, you seem to be onto something.

Like a couple other commentors, I am unsure how your essay relates to the main question. How do these equations imply intention for, say, humans?

Putting that issue aside, I do not see...

view entire post

I am not a physicist (I was trained in mathematics), so some of your essay I can only attempt to get my head around. Based upon some other comments, you seem to be onto something.

Like a couple other commentors, I am unsure how your essay relates to the main question. How do these equations imply intention for, say, humans?

Putting that issue aside, I do not see...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Palmer

Thank you very much for your detailed and well-intentioned comment.

You are right when you say: I am unsure how your essay relates to the main question. How do these equations imply intention for, say, humans?

Maybe it's about topic, that universe has aims and intention to produce a proton, that is first step to everything else. Also theme requires math, which is in the essay.

About error terms, you are right. In my previous articles I carefully counted uncertainty, but I noticed that in the competition it is not the custom. That is why, this time I reject. For example, uncertainties you can see here: Universal Gravitational Constant Via Rydberg Constant viXra:1311.0081

Ili druge članke ovde: http://vixra.org/author/branko_zivlak

About underlying principle: I can repeat everything discussed in my previous articles, referenced Much, Bošković, Newton and other giants of philosophy of nature. There are plenty of professional physicists who can explain how it is that their theories provide extraordinary paradox, but mine not. I confirm my theory by numerous of applications. The number of applications confirms the Newtonian law of gravity too, which many feel is an approximation. I'm sure, most eloquent essay written by an unknown author would not have forced physicists to read it. So, I prefer to use my time finding new applications of “The Theory of Unity between the Whole and its Parts”.

And, I admit that intentional human action is not the subject of my interest.

Once again, thank you for your efforts, regarding my essay.

Regards,

Branko

Thank you very much for your detailed and well-intentioned comment.

You are right when you say: I am unsure how your essay relates to the main question. How do these equations imply intention for, say, humans?

Maybe it's about topic, that universe has aims and intention to produce a proton, that is first step to everything else. Also theme requires math, which is in the essay.

About error terms, you are right. In my previous articles I carefully counted uncertainty, but I noticed that in the competition it is not the custom. That is why, this time I reject. For example, uncertainties you can see here: Universal Gravitational Constant Via Rydberg Constant viXra:1311.0081

Ili druge članke ovde: http://vixra.org/author/branko_zivlak

About underlying principle: I can repeat everything discussed in my previous articles, referenced Much, Bošković, Newton and other giants of philosophy of nature. There are plenty of professional physicists who can explain how it is that their theories provide extraordinary paradox, but mine not. I confirm my theory by numerous of applications. The number of applications confirms the Newtonian law of gravity too, which many feel is an approximation. I'm sure, most eloquent essay written by an unknown author would not have forced physicists to read it. So, I prefer to use my time finding new applications of “The Theory of Unity between the Whole and its Parts”.

And, I admit that intentional human action is not the subject of my interest.

Once again, thank you for your efforts, regarding my essay.

Regards,

Branko

Login or create account to post reply or comment.