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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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 Fund.

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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

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

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

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

**Robert Wilson**: *on* 5/17/20 at 17:51pm UTC, wrote Well, it seems my prediction is a little higher than yours, and a little...

**Robert Wilson**: *on* 5/17/20 at 16:23pm UTC, wrote I am not quite sure what you mean by sending you my result in dimensionless...

**Pavel Poluian**: *on* 5/17/20 at 6:15am UTC, wrote Dear Branko! Thanks for the clarification. Yes, we think the same about...

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 5/17/20 at 3:33am UTC, wrote Dear Branko, You asked "Are neutrinos solitons? What is the analogy of a...

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 5/16/20 at 12:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Branko, Glad to read your work again. I greatly appreciated your...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 5/14/20 at 20:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Pavel Vadimovich Poluian Thanks for the comment on my forum. I...

**Pavel Poluian**: *on* 5/14/20 at 4:40am UTC, wrote Dear Branko L Zivlak! We think that mathematics can be of two types:...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 5/13/20 at 20:08pm UTC, wrote Dear James Lee Hoover The text I wrote in the essay should only be an...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**jim hughes**: "I'm not a mathematician. So what I see here is some smart people who..."
*in* Consciousness and the...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hello FQXi, the members and all, I try to do my best to unite and convice..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Lorraine Ford**: "The idea of a smooth mathematical evolution of “the wave function”, and..."
*in* Consciousness and the...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..."
*in* The Room in the Elephant:...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..."
*in* The Room in the Elephant:...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Thank you John. What did you think about the questioning whether altitude..."
*in* The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Good Vibrations**

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

**Reconstructing Physics**

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

**The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves**

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

**The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI**

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

**Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel**

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM

September 28, 2021

CATEGORY:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020)
[back]

TOPIC: From Unpredictability to Predictability by Branko L Zivlak [refresh]

TOPIC: From Unpredictability to Predictability by Branko L Zivlak [refresh]

This article points to obstacles that exist in contemporary science when it comes to finding solutions to general problems which are often the subject of research of participants in this contest. Using the outstanding achievements of the World Meteorological Organization as an example, this article explains what prevents the comprehension of the universe as a whole. Moreover, the article contains results obtained by avoiding the mentioned obstacles.

Zivlak Branko is a retired meteorologist. Had been working in applied meteorology, climatology, computer science and ecology.

Dear Zivlak,

I really enjoyed this essay, thank you. Prediction is a fascinating topic and you have made me realise that a meteorologist has many similarities to a shares analyst/forecaster. I agree with you that risk mitigation / better forecasting, is achieved by avoiding:

1. Imprecise terminology;

2. Multiple units of measurement for the same phenomenon;

3. Inadequate use of mathematics.

Kind regards,

Jack

report post as inappropriate

I really enjoyed this essay, thank you. Prediction is a fascinating topic and you have made me realise that a meteorologist has many similarities to a shares analyst/forecaster. I agree with you that risk mitigation / better forecasting, is achieved by avoiding:

1. Imprecise terminology;

2. Multiple units of measurement for the same phenomenon;

3. Inadequate use of mathematics.

Kind regards,

Jack

report post as inappropriate

Dear James,

Thanks for your interest in my essay.

You say:

We assume there are infinite universes and infinite sets, is one “more”infinite? Does this matter re complexity, given incompleteness arises in more complex systems?

My, let's just say philosophical result (from calculations) are the views I have expressed regarding the finite / infinite universe. It is not clear to me whether we agree / disagree on the finite / infinite universe. Or is it another misalignment?

Kind regards,

Branko

Thanks for your interest in my essay.

You say:

We assume there are infinite universes and infinite sets, is one “more”infinite? Does this matter re complexity, given incompleteness arises in more complex systems?

My, let's just say philosophical result (from calculations) are the views I have expressed regarding the finite / infinite universe. It is not clear to me whether we agree / disagree on the finite / infinite universe. Or is it another misalignment?

Kind regards,

Branko

Dear Branko L Zivlak, the comprehension of the universe as a whole is hindered by the reluctance of people to believe that space is matter and that space moves relative to itself, since it is matter. They still believe that space exists by itself, as a container of bodies, and that it is motionless.

The neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the principle of the identity of space and Descartes’s matter, gave the Heisenberg uncertainty principle the opposite meaning. It has become the principle of definiteness of points in space, according to which an infinitely large impulse is needed to separate it from other points. Moreover, in order to make it move together with other points within a certain interval, an impulse is needed, the magnitude of which is inversely proportional to the interval.

I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes: “The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich. "

I add that the measurement system should be based on units of length and time LT. For example, the amount of matter is L3, i.e. volume of space. The charge is L3T-1, i.e. the speed of movement of space. Mass - L3T-2, i.e. space acceleration (see Chuev's system of units). I note that if we multiply the mass given in kilograms by the gravitational constant, we get the mass in L3T-2.

report post as inappropriate

The neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the principle of the identity of space and Descartes’s matter, gave the Heisenberg uncertainty principle the opposite meaning. It has become the principle of definiteness of points in space, according to which an infinitely large impulse is needed to separate it from other points. Moreover, in order to make it move together with other points within a certain interval, an impulse is needed, the magnitude of which is inversely proportional to the interval.

I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes: “The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich. "

I add that the measurement system should be based on units of length and time LT. For example, the amount of matter is L3, i.e. volume of space. The charge is L3T-1, i.e. the speed of movement of space. Mass - L3T-2, i.e. space acceleration (see Chuev's system of units). I note that if we multiply the mass given in kilograms by the gravitational constant, we get the mass in L3T-2.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Boris

If you disagree with my views or feel that my formulas are just a coincidence, feel free to say so. Ignoring my work is at the same time ignoring your work, because on one occasion I quoted you. Promoting your essay here is counterproductive.

Regards

Branko

If you disagree with my views or feel that my formulas are just a coincidence, feel free to say so. Ignoring my work is at the same time ignoring your work, because on one occasion I quoted you. Promoting your essay here is counterproductive.

Regards

Branko

Dear Branko, it is nice to read your essay, since it does not contain mathematical formulas in the text, which are summarized in one table. The questions you raised are important for a universal understanding of nature by humanity. However, I think that this competition will not allow all participants to pay attention to them because of its transience. Here, everyone has his own questions in his head and everyone strives to go around all the participants and earn a high mark. Your questions deserve a separate contest. So now I have no opportunity to enter into a deep discussion of these topics. The main thing for me is that the contestants pay attention to the identity of Descartes’s space and matter, according to which physical space moves, since it is matter. I’m not asking for myself, but for Descartes. And I give you the highest rating for your excellent essay, despite the fact that you said: "Promoting your essay here is counterproductive."

Sincerely, Dzhechko Semenovich

report post as inappropriate

Sincerely, Dzhechko Semenovich

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branco! I am glad that you took the time to read my essay to the end and gave a meaningful comment. As a meteorologist, of course, you are well aware of atmospheric vortex phenomena such as cyclones and anticyclones, in which, I believe, the energy is concentrated not only in temperature changes, but also the energy associated with the rotation of the Earth is released. The atmospheric air rotates in cyclones and anticyclones, and the space rotates in corpuscles, which, according to Descartes, is the matter that forms us and the world around us. Electromagnetic waves are oscillations of space, and particles are stabilized rotations of the same space. Matter is a philosophical category for designating what is given to us in the form of a sense of space. The neocartesian generalization of modern physics does not chase the predictions of something new, it generalizes what has already been created in physics and reveals in it connections that were not visible before. For example, notice that the gravitational constant has such a dimension that if it is multiplied by mass, we get a stream of centrifugal acceleration of the rotation of space in the corpuscle. Of all the existing measurement systems, the neocartesian generalization of modern physics prefers the SYSTEM OF DYNAMIC PHYSICAL QUANTITIES IN DIMENSION LT (A.S. Chueva), in which the mass has the dimension L3 / T2. The amount of matter in this system is not measured by mass, but by volume - this means that the water bottle contains as much matter as it is in an empty bottle. I wish you success in the competition! I have long praised your essay. Sincerely, Boris Dzhechko.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I like this essay Branko,

And I will have to read it again both for enjoyment and full comprehension. The Planck unit system has much value to recommend it for. I agree about the confusion with units, and we find a similar thing with technical terms in Physics, Math, and Engineering. There are different words, different letters of the alphabet used for the same variable, and so on. The way that Multivariate Calculus is taught exacerbates this problem for Physics or Engineering students because the emphasis is so different. It is almost insane.

I would say that it is important to use applicable Maths for the problem at hand. The use of enough Math is not sufficient. I think both inadequate and improper use of Mathematics can get people into trouble. In one lecture I attended; Mikhail Kovalyov stated that most of what we see in nature is non-linear if you were to truly represent the Physics in Maths. But since so many such equations are unsolvable; people impose a limiting or initial condition to obtain linear solutions, and work with those.

That is perhaps the inadequate use of Maths for the application or conditions modeled, because the equations used tell only part of the story, or do not cover the full range of dynamic behaviors an actual system can possess. I know that comes up a lot in meteorology. I will have more to say later.

Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

And I will have to read it again both for enjoyment and full comprehension. The Planck unit system has much value to recommend it for. I agree about the confusion with units, and we find a similar thing with technical terms in Physics, Math, and Engineering. There are different words, different letters of the alphabet used for the same variable, and so on. The way that Multivariate Calculus is taught exacerbates this problem for Physics or Engineering students because the emphasis is so different. It is almost insane.

I would say that it is important to use applicable Maths for the problem at hand. The use of enough Math is not sufficient. I think both inadequate and improper use of Mathematics can get people into trouble. In one lecture I attended; Mikhail Kovalyov stated that most of what we see in nature is non-linear if you were to truly represent the Physics in Maths. But since so many such equations are unsolvable; people impose a limiting or initial condition to obtain linear solutions, and work with those.

That is perhaps the inadequate use of Maths for the application or conditions modeled, because the equations used tell only part of the story, or do not cover the full range of dynamic behaviors an actual system can possess. I know that comes up a lot in meteorology. I will have more to say later.

Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Jonathan

for your interest in my essay and the additional issues you have highlighted. There are also unsolvable formulas in meteorology. In these cases, it is important to clearly state the limitations of the formula used.

I pointed out in the essay those obstacles that are easy to avoid. Since you mention gravity in your essay and in the Contest - 2017 you had gravity in the title, here's an example of an obstacle that imposes on students the wrong definition:

“In order to calculate escape velocity for Earth, it is necessary to ask what the velocity of an object would fall from infinity to Earth.”

This definition produces a result with high approximate accuracy for all celestial bodies, but it is devastating to further understand nature and especially gravity and black holes. Namely, the use of the word "infinity" is unnecessary, deeply misleading, and should be avoided because it confuses students and scholars alike. After all, something that comes from infinity would never fall to Earth. For me, avoiding obstacles leads to the results that are listed in the table at the end of the essay and are easily verifiable.

Regards

Branko

for your interest in my essay and the additional issues you have highlighted. There are also unsolvable formulas in meteorology. In these cases, it is important to clearly state the limitations of the formula used.

I pointed out in the essay those obstacles that are easy to avoid. Since you mention gravity in your essay and in the Contest - 2017 you had gravity in the title, here's an example of an obstacle that imposes on students the wrong definition:

“In order to calculate escape velocity for Earth, it is necessary to ask what the velocity of an object would fall from infinity to Earth.”

This definition produces a result with high approximate accuracy for all celestial bodies, but it is devastating to further understand nature and especially gravity and black holes. Namely, the use of the word "infinity" is unnecessary, deeply misleading, and should be avoided because it confuses students and scholars alike. After all, something that comes from infinity would never fall to Earth. For me, avoiding obstacles leads to the results that are listed in the table at the end of the essay and are easily verifiable.

Regards

Branko

If we could only train people to use it...

The preferred terminology is 'to arbitrarily large values' or 'for extremely large values of N,' but in my paper I use the term 'goes to infinity' for a purely mathematical relation. Even in that instance though; it would be more correct to say it 'marches toward infinity.'

Only with infinite time or infinite repetition would an actual infinite value be arrived at. This is too subtle for most folks. It gives a deceptive impression of things like black hole horizons when we treat a variable in nature as though it could be infinite, not only massively huge.

I am reminded of Plato's comment via Diogenes "Time is the image of eternity." for which the equivalent is "Space is the image of infinity." I guess the idea that space goes on endlessly is a compelling one. It certainly approaches an infinite expanse, but it will probably never get there.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

The preferred terminology is 'to arbitrarily large values' or 'for extremely large values of N,' but in my paper I use the term 'goes to infinity' for a purely mathematical relation. Even in that instance though; it would be more correct to say it 'marches toward infinity.'

Only with infinite time or infinite repetition would an actual infinite value be arrived at. This is too subtle for most folks. It gives a deceptive impression of things like black hole horizons when we treat a variable in nature as though it could be infinite, not only massively huge.

I am reminded of Plato's comment via Diogenes "Time is the image of eternity." for which the equivalent is "Space is the image of infinity." I guess the idea that space goes on endlessly is a compelling one. It certainly approaches an infinite expanse, but it will probably never get there.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hello Branko,

An interesting essay with a number of valuable points. While I agree with your three obstacles:

1.Imprecise terminology;

2.Multiple units of measurement for the same phenomenon;

3.Inadequate use of mathematics.

the last one casts a long shadow for me. Science develops models about how we perceive reality (you can also call this 'the universe'),...

view entire post

An interesting essay with a number of valuable points. While I agree with your three obstacles:

1.Imprecise terminology;

2.Multiple units of measurement for the same phenomenon;

3.Inadequate use of mathematics.

the last one casts a long shadow for me. Science develops models about how we perceive reality (you can also call this 'the universe'),...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Donald

The key point in my essay is the mathematical formulas at the end of the text from which we conclude: essential is discovered rather than invented mathematics.

Regards Branko

The key point in my essay is the mathematical formulas at the end of the text from which we conclude: essential is discovered rather than invented mathematics.

Regards Branko

"... in physics we should eliminate the term infinity, because the results of mathematical operations with infinite values are also undefined values." Infinity is beyond counting or measuring — therefore it is a semi-theological concept in terms of fundamental physics — often useful mathematically but not fundamentally true in physics. My guess is that the radius of our universe is a constant.

"A simple Hubble-like law in lieu of dark energy" by Yves-Henri Sanejouand, 2014, arXiv

I have conjectured that Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino are geniuses — do we agree or disagree on this?

report post as inappropriate

"A simple Hubble-like law in lieu of dark energy" by Yves-Henri Sanejouand, 2014, arXiv

I have conjectured that Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino are geniuses — do we agree or disagree on this?

report post as inappropriate

Dear David

The universe has no shape, so it's hard to say that the radius of a non-existent shape is constant. However, we can define the radius of the universe as the distance a photon would reach at the speed of light during the cycle of the universe, that is, the constant R = 1.29165 * 10 ^ 26 m, which you can see in many of my articles.

Regards Branko

The universe has no shape, so it's hard to say that the radius of a non-existent shape is constant. However, we can define the radius of the universe as the distance a photon would reach at the speed of light during the cycle of the universe, that is, the constant R = 1.29165 * 10 ^ 26 m, which you can see in many of my articles.

Regards Branko

Hi Branko,

The 'discovered' vs 'invented' aspect of mathematics can be a telling perspective. I have not had a discussion where the symbols we use are considered 'discovered' but are always understood to be 'invented'.

Some more discussion can lead to an understanding that the mathematics we discover are dependent (at least to a degree) upon the symbols we use (if we had stuck with Newton's or Hamilton's symbols, we might be much farther behind today).

This leads to some concept that symbols and mathematical rules have a sort-of symbiotic relationship - each influencing the other. So even if mathematical rules are discovered, the invention of symbols are a necessary part of the discovery.

Given the symbolic nature of your formulas, do you think they are entirely discovered?

If we could define the rules for negative logarithms, we would need new symbols to properly make use of them. We might be able to define a value to 'i' (=sqrt(-1)) and compress x + iy into a true single value z, which would impact many equations.

Maybe your formulas could equate to different concepts if we could symbolize negative logs?

Don

report post as inappropriate

The 'discovered' vs 'invented' aspect of mathematics can be a telling perspective. I have not had a discussion where the symbols we use are considered 'discovered' but are always understood to be 'invented'.

Some more discussion can lead to an understanding that the mathematics we discover are dependent (at least to a degree) upon the symbols we use (if we had stuck with Newton's or Hamilton's symbols, we might be much farther behind today).

This leads to some concept that symbols and mathematical rules have a sort-of symbiotic relationship - each influencing the other. So even if mathematical rules are discovered, the invention of symbols are a necessary part of the discovery.

Given the symbolic nature of your formulas, do you think they are entirely discovered?

If we could define the rules for negative logarithms, we would need new symbols to properly make use of them. We might be able to define a value to 'i' (=sqrt(-1)) and compress x + iy into a true single value z, which would impact many equations.

Maybe your formulas could equate to different concepts if we could symbolize negative logs?

Don

report post as inappropriate

Dear Amrit

If you order the essays alphabetically by author last name I am always on the end.

My articles you can find here:

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/145

1/Branko,%20Zivlak

Regards Branko

If you order the essays alphabetically by author last name I am always on the end.

My articles you can find here:

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/145

1/Branko,%20Zivlak

Regards Branko

Dear Zivlak.

You wrote: Hence, the universe of finite mass and radius is eternal, but with finite time cycle of the universe.

NASA has measured back in 2014 Universa has Euclidean Shape. The energy of matter and energy of space of the universe are infinite. Bat there is no singularities. See my article attached. Your statement above is false.

yours amrit

attachments: 3_Black_Holes_are_Rejuvenating_Systems_of_the_Universe_.pdf

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: Hence, the universe of finite mass and radius is eternal, but with finite time cycle of the universe.

NASA has measured back in 2014 Universa has Euclidean Shape. The energy of matter and energy of space of the universe are infinite. Bat there is no singularities. See my article attached. Your statement above is false.

yours amrit

attachments: 3_Black_Holes_are_Rejuvenating_Systems_of_the_Universe_.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Dear Amrit

I agree:

NASA's result confirmed by measurements performed by them as well as validated by others have proved, that universal space has Euclidean shape with only a 0.4% margin of error, and that the space is infinite and “Flat”.

If you have good measurements and understand nature at Huuble and Lemeitre level then you have BB cosmology.

If you understand it at the level of Newton and Boskovic then you do not have BB cosmology.

What does infinite space mean in the previous quote. If you travel at the speed of light 13.7 billion years, it does not mean that you will come to the end of the universe. You will still be able to continue your journey, so the space is infinite for you. But in one moment space is finite.

Regards Branko

I agree:

NASA's result confirmed by measurements performed by them as well as validated by others have proved, that universal space has Euclidean shape with only a 0.4% margin of error, and that the space is infinite and “Flat”.

If you have good measurements and understand nature at Huuble and Lemeitre level then you have BB cosmology.

If you understand it at the level of Newton and Boskovic then you do not have BB cosmology.

What does infinite space mean in the previous quote. If you travel at the speed of light 13.7 billion years, it does not mean that you will come to the end of the universe. You will still be able to continue your journey, so the space is infinite for you. But in one moment space is finite.

Regards Branko

Hello Branco,

And which constants are the most fundamental? - Primordial (ontological) constants of the Universum as a whole?

Respectfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

And which constants are the most fundamental? - Primordial (ontological) constants of the Universum as a whole?

Respectfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hello Branko,

And what is the justification that these constants are basic, principal? Is it possible to build a scientific picture of the world on the basis of these three constants?

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

And what is the justification that these constants are basic, principal? Is it possible to build a scientific picture of the world on the basis of these three constants?

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branco

While reading your essay I made the following remarks.

I agree fully with the fact that we will NEVER be able to understand the WHOLE shebang. (universe).

Making forecasts for two or three days is I think already a very good result. You say that the subjectivity of the forecaster is also a factor, indeed the forecaster can choose if some depression has more or...

view entire post

While reading your essay I made the following remarks.

I agree fully with the fact that we will NEVER be able to understand the WHOLE shebang. (universe).

Making forecasts for two or three days is I think already a very good result. You say that the subjectivity of the forecaster is also a factor, indeed the forecaster can choose if some depression has more or...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for your reasonable comments.

I would not say that I accepted the Planck units, but rather that I used them and received outstanding results. In my table at the end of the essay, only the first four rows are known constants. The last five rows are correct relations resulting, among other things thanks to the understanding Plank. Please check those relationships. The predictions in that table are the goal, and avoiding all obstacles, and even the three mentioned, made that possible.

I can agree that "everything that exists" is also a vague expression. I emphasized that the terminology should be harmonized and that the word universe could not be used at the same time for part and for the whole.

“Exists when and where” – at one point in time in spatialy finite universe,

“And especially WHY?” – because it is mathematically inevitable.

Regards Branko

Thanks for your reasonable comments.

I would not say that I accepted the Planck units, but rather that I used them and received outstanding results. In my table at the end of the essay, only the first four rows are known constants. The last five rows are correct relations resulting, among other things thanks to the understanding Plank. Please check those relationships. The predictions in that table are the goal, and avoiding all obstacles, and even the three mentioned, made that possible.

I can agree that "everything that exists" is also a vague expression. I emphasized that the terminology should be harmonized and that the word universe could not be used at the same time for part and for the whole.

“Exists when and where” – at one point in time in spatialy finite universe,

“And especially WHY?” – because it is mathematically inevitable.

Regards Branko

I answered to your comment on my essay Branko

quote

Thank you, dear Branco, for reading my participation,

You ask to make "forecasts".(eventually with formula's

I cannot. Why? First of all my maths is not sufficiently developed, and secondly making predictions in an emergent phenomenon (illusion) is a very difficult thing. Expectations yes because they are based on the past events, that are fluctuations inside our memories.

I can try to make a prediction: IF we would be able to come closer to the Planck units of space and time, we would also approach our Point Zero (where our free will resides), and so be closer to the future of our life-lines. ot a bad future.

Thanks

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

quote

Thank you, dear Branco, for reading my participation,

You ask to make "forecasts".(eventually with formula's

I cannot. Why? First of all my maths is not sufficiently developed, and secondly making predictions in an emergent phenomenon (illusion) is a very difficult thing. Expectations yes because they are based on the past events, that are fluctuations inside our memories.

I can try to make a prediction: IF we would be able to come closer to the Planck units of space and time, we would also approach our Point Zero (where our free will resides), and so be closer to the future of our life-lines. ot a bad future.

Thanks

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

I would like to ask you a few questions about your modified version of the Koide formula.

First, as I understand it, the point of the Koide formula is that it predicts the mass of the tau particle, and moreover this mass has shifted two standard deviations from its experimental value in the 1980s to very close to where the Koide formula predicts. The current prediction is 1776.969 MeV/c^2, if my calculation is correct, compared to the CODATA 2014 value 1776.82(16), so that it is within 1 standard deviation. So I wonder why you feel the need to modify this formula, which is doing quite well as it is?

Second, since the calculations are not entirely trivial, I would like to ask what is the value of the tau mass predicted by your formula?

For comparison, the value predicted by the formula e+mu+tau+3p=5n in my essay is 1776.84145(3).

Regards,

Robert Wilson.

report post as inappropriate

I would like to ask you a few questions about your modified version of the Koide formula.

First, as I understand it, the point of the Koide formula is that it predicts the mass of the tau particle, and moreover this mass has shifted two standard deviations from its experimental value in the 1980s to very close to where the Koide formula predicts. The current prediction is 1776.969 MeV/c^2, if my calculation is correct, compared to the CODATA 2014 value 1776.82(16), so that it is within 1 standard deviation. So I wonder why you feel the need to modify this formula, which is doing quite well as it is?

Second, since the calculations are not entirely trivial, I would like to ask what is the value of the tau mass predicted by your formula?

For comparison, the value predicted by the formula e+mu+tau+3p=5n in my essay is 1776.84145(3).

Regards,

Robert Wilson.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

Excellent essay, original, interesting, instructive, well expressed and argued, (and it certainly need arguing), also masterfully not reverting to mentioning Chaos theory at all! (I'd have bet the same you did about Werner & Kurt!).

I commend your comments on singularities, indeed if you get to my essay you'll see I use observational data of AGN to propose the potential...

view entire post

Excellent essay, original, interesting, instructive, well expressed and argued, (and it certainly need arguing), also masterfully not reverting to mentioning Chaos theory at all! (I'd have bet the same you did about Werner & Kurt!).

I commend your comments on singularities, indeed if you get to my essay you'll see I use observational data of AGN to propose the potential...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Branko - I just posted my own essay and started reading the other ones, beginning in the order they were posted. Yours was the first to be at all intelligible to me! Thanks! Finally, someone talking about data and prediction!

I thought your suggestions were useful and interesting, but I'm not clear how they "resolve" the inherent limitations of chaos and complexity to make things more predictable - to me these lead to a conclusion that much that we would like to know about the future is unknowable. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

George Gantz: The Door That Has No Key

report post as inappropriate

I thought your suggestions were useful and interesting, but I'm not clear how they "resolve" the inherent limitations of chaos and complexity to make things more predictable - to me these lead to a conclusion that much that we would like to know about the future is unknowable. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

George Gantz: The Door That Has No Key

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

I would like to ask you about your opinion on the imprecise terminology. In quantum information science, the terminology "quantum supremacy" is often used. While this meaning is often confused, the Google AI Quantum teams was recently claimed to achieve this in Nature paper. This counterexample was claimed from IBM researches. On the other had, this terminology is not socially proper as seen in the comment. For scientific achievements, do we need improve the terminology from the fuzzy definition? After the meaning is established, I would agree with your opinion to avoid the usage of the imprecise terminology.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

report post as inappropriate

I would like to ask you about your opinion on the imprecise terminology. In quantum information science, the terminology "quantum supremacy" is often used. While this meaning is often confused, the Google AI Quantum teams was recently claimed to achieve this in Nature paper. This counterexample was claimed from IBM researches. On the other had, this terminology is not socially proper as seen in the comment. For scientific achievements, do we need improve the terminology from the fuzzy definition? After the meaning is established, I would agree with your opinion to avoid the usage of the imprecise terminology.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

report post as inappropriate

Dear Yutaka Shikano

I'm a meteorologist, not related to quantum information science. Of course, in all fields of science, there is imprecise terminology that interferes with education, and on issues that are addressed by most participants in the universe, this is unacceptable.

I would be grateful if you would check and comment on my formulas.

Regards,

Branko

I'm a meteorologist, not related to quantum information science. Of course, in all fields of science, there is imprecise terminology that interferes with education, and on issues that are addressed by most participants in the universe, this is unacceptable.

I would be grateful if you would check and comment on my formulas.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Dr. Branko,

Having read your essay, we found submisison very unique!

In particular your emphasis on usesage of proper terminology and clear mathematics; without which we cannot formulate an accurate question, let alone provide a good answer.

Something our paradigm of viewing mathematics as the only possible language of natural sciences emphasize on ( a point you mentioned in commenting on our essay)

Best,

Raiyan Reza and Rastin Reza

report post as inappropriate

Having read your essay, we found submisison very unique!

In particular your emphasis on usesage of proper terminology and clear mathematics; without which we cannot formulate an accurate question, let alone provide a good answer.

Something our paradigm of viewing mathematics as the only possible language of natural sciences emphasize on ( a point you mentioned in commenting on our essay)

Best,

Raiyan Reza and Rastin Reza

report post as inappropriate

dear Zivlak your essay raises simple but pertinent breath taking questions on dimensionless physical constants we apply as measure and quantity to Space -time,hence attracts a handsome vote. I too question these in my essay here -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.kindly pass by for review/vote.i greatly appreciate. thanks

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Branko, I agree that imprecise (and ambiguous) terminology causes problems in communicating and modelling in physics. Physics sidelines metaphysics yet i think existence has to be foundational.Mainstream physics concerns itself with that which can be measured or observed. So the visible universe is what can be seen,a production/ many products of observation. The observable universe is the potentially observable, but not necessarily seen. Whereas the entirety of that existing is something utterly different. Not itself see-able. Using the correct mathematics correctly is difficult as what seems appropriate depends on what is being modeled and whether the model corresponds to existential reality. Different units for same phenomena are (I think) less insidious, less ingrained, more known than the other two issues, you raise.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Robert Wilson

Sorry for the late answer. This is due to changes introduced by FQXs regarding emails during the competition.

My answer regarding the Koide formula is in my forum.

In the spirit of my essay, it would be best if dimensionless formulas can be presented. It is just such a Koide formula with its expected result of 2/3. Please send me your result in dimensionless form.

Thanks to mathematician Hugh Matlock I have this spreadsheet comparing errors of my formula and CODATA values.

And you noticed well:

“and moreover this mass has shifted two standard deviations from its experimental value in the 1980s to very close to where the Koide formula predicts.”

In the attached table of Hugh Matlock you can see that by my formula the CODATA value from 2014 (3.167 47 e-27 (29)) have been predicted with the data from 1986.

Year CODATA tau *e-27 kg Zivlak tau

1969 xxxxxxxxxx 3.167550(113)

1973 xxxxxxxxxx 3.167542(33)

1986 xxxxxxxxxx 3.1674871(33)

1998 3.16788(52) 3.16748435(47)

2002 3.16777(52) 3.16748485(97)

2006 3.16777(52) 3.16748468(32)

2010 3.167470(290) 3.167484977(281)

You can compare your formula the same way through CODATA history.

More importantly, many other physical constants are obtained using the same methodology, as you can see in thise essay and my previous FQX essays.

Regards,

Branko

Sorry for the late answer. This is due to changes introduced by FQXs regarding emails during the competition.

My answer regarding the Koide formula is in my forum.

In the spirit of my essay, it would be best if dimensionless formulas can be presented. It is just such a Koide formula with its expected result of 2/3. Please send me your result in dimensionless form.

Thanks to mathematician Hugh Matlock I have this spreadsheet comparing errors of my formula and CODATA values.

And you noticed well:

“and moreover this mass has shifted two standard deviations from its experimental value in the 1980s to very close to where the Koide formula predicts.”

In the attached table of Hugh Matlock you can see that by my formula the CODATA value from 2014 (3.167 47 e-27 (29)) have been predicted with the data from 1986.

Year CODATA tau *e-27 kg Zivlak tau

1969 xxxxxxxxxx 3.167550(113)

1973 xxxxxxxxxx 3.167542(33)

1986 xxxxxxxxxx 3.1674871(33)

1998 3.16788(52) 3.16748435(47)

2002 3.16777(52) 3.16748485(97)

2006 3.16777(52) 3.16748468(32)

2010 3.167470(290) 3.167484977(281)

You can compare your formula the same way through CODATA history.

More importantly, many other physical constants are obtained using the same methodology, as you can see in thise essay and my previous FQX essays.

Regards,

Branko

I am not quite sure what you mean by sending you my result in dimensionless form. It already is in dimensionless form. That is, it says one mass is equal to another mass. If you want me to say instead that the ratio of the two masses is equal to 1, I can do it, but I am sure you are quite capable of making that translation for yourself.

Robert Wilson.

report post as inappropriate

Robert Wilson.

report post as inappropriate

Well, it seems my prediction is a little higher than yours, and a little lower than Koide's, at 3167.5076. Time will tell, I guess, which is most accurate.

Robert.

report post as inappropriate

Robert.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina Woodward

You said the key thing:

Mainstream physics concerns itself with what can be measured or observed.

That is why no profession, not even physicists, has the right to speak of "entirety of that existing."

It is convenient to use the term Philosophers of Nature for those trying to understand the universe.

I do not agree with your position:

“Using the correct mathematics correctly is difficult as what seems appropriate depends on what is being modeled and whether the model corresponds to existential reality.”

Using the correct mathematics correctly is easy and goes smoothly.

Using uncorrect mathematics to calculate uncorrect presumptions is hard and stressful, leading to wonders, paradoxes and mysticism.

Regards,

Branko

You said the key thing:

Mainstream physics concerns itself with what can be measured or observed.

That is why no profession, not even physicists, has the right to speak of "entirety of that existing."

It is convenient to use the term Philosophers of Nature for those trying to understand the universe.

I do not agree with your position:

“Using the correct mathematics correctly is difficult as what seems appropriate depends on what is being modeled and whether the model corresponds to existential reality.”

Using the correct mathematics correctly is easy and goes smoothly.

Using uncorrect mathematics to calculate uncorrect presumptions is hard and stressful, leading to wonders, paradoxes and mysticism.

Regards,

Branko

Yes, I did not express myself as well as I could have. I meant it is difficult to know what is correct, when the model of reality being modeled is not necessarily so. For example correct use of Pythagorean maths. in the light clock thought experiment. It does not depict the reality that would have to be under those circumstances. The light beam in the clock must travel the same distance whether the observer is still and seeing a moving clock or is moving with the clock seeing it still (like a still observer watching still clock). Whether it is moving or not is relative perception.If the light is following a wave path it is the same distance whether the path is expanded or contracted. So Pythagorean maths. does not apply. The period of periodic motion is invariant under translation. How it is seen by an outside observer doesn't affect how the clock itself works.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The square of the hypotenuse is only equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides if all sides are straight lines. If the hypotenuse is a wave path and the other two sides are straight lines, then Pythagoras theorem does not apply.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Yes, that's why I use exponents and logarithms in my formulas at the end of the essay. Then Pythagoras' theorem becomes a special case and approximation in the local part of the universe.

Dear Peter Jackson

Sorry for the late answer. This is due to changes introduced by FQXs regarding emails during the competition.

I have no doubt as to the results I have received.

Sometimes our senses deceive us, so we have to engage our racio to understand what it really is.

Each process also has the opposite process, where the attraction in the environment is repulsion, radiation is the opposite of matter. Somewhere there is mass growth and somewhere there is a decrease.

But, I did not think about these things at all but got them as a result of mathematical calculations.

Just because we see distant galaxies moving apart does not mean that the universe is expanding, because galaxies are transforming too. It is also often the case that scientists invent a problem that they then solve and the problem does not even exist. The mass as it is created may disappear, the same applies to space.

Imagine these opposites:

Observer Huuble with his galaxy repel vs Newton with his formulas.

Priest Lemaitre with Big Bang vs priest Rudjer Bošković with his deduction explaining the forces.

Which ones do you bet first or second. I bet on Newton and Bošković.

Regards,

Branko

Sorry for the late answer. This is due to changes introduced by FQXs regarding emails during the competition.

I have no doubt as to the results I have received.

Sometimes our senses deceive us, so we have to engage our racio to understand what it really is.

Each process also has the opposite process, where the attraction in the environment is repulsion, radiation is the opposite of matter. Somewhere there is mass growth and somewhere there is a decrease.

But, I did not think about these things at all but got them as a result of mathematical calculations.

Just because we see distant galaxies moving apart does not mean that the universe is expanding, because galaxies are transforming too. It is also often the case that scientists invent a problem that they then solve and the problem does not even exist. The mass as it is created may disappear, the same applies to space.

Imagine these opposites:

Observer Huuble with his galaxy repel vs Newton with his formulas.

Priest Lemaitre with Big Bang vs priest Rudjer Bošković with his deduction explaining the forces.

Which ones do you bet first or second. I bet on Newton and Bošković.

Regards,

Branko

While not as definitive as some offerings...

Your essay is certainly impressive Branko. I like the idea that much of the unpredictability and uncertainty we encounter is due to confusion with terms and units of measurement. Certainly the inadequate use of Math or the use of inadequate Maths contributes to those issues. But as you know; the variability of nature is quite impressive. I think it's really cool that so many things line up on your table of dimensionless constants though. I have not checked the whole list but I trust that you did.

Well done!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is certainly impressive Branko. I like the idea that much of the unpredictability and uncertainty we encounter is due to confusion with terms and units of measurement. Certainly the inadequate use of Math or the use of inadequate Maths contributes to those issues. But as you know; the variability of nature is quite impressive. I think it's really cool that so many things line up on your table of dimensionless constants though. I have not checked the whole list but I trust that you did.

Well done!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Jonathan

Really, when things are set up well in physics, it all comes down to repeating simple patterns (for example: bits, fractals, Planck constant). I have already rated your interesting work on Mandelbrot sets with a good rating.

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Really, when things are set up well in physics, it all comes down to repeating simple patterns (for example: bits, fractals, Planck constant). I have already rated your interesting work on Mandelbrot sets with a good rating.

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Branko

This is a response to a comment you made to my essay. I don't know how all this works so to make sure you get it I am placing it here. Al Schneider

There was a king that laid 10000 square feet of sod behind the castle. It looked so good he wanted rose bushes around the area. He asked the gardener to plant roses. The gardener asked the royal mathematician how many roses would be needed given the area was 10000 square feet. The mathematician made out an order slip for the gardener. It requested 400 rose bushes and 400 taycheon rose bushes.

report post as inappropriate

This is a response to a comment you made to my essay. I don't know how all this works so to make sure you get it I am placing it here. Al Schneider

There was a king that laid 10000 square feet of sod behind the castle. It looked so good he wanted rose bushes around the area. He asked the gardener to plant roses. The gardener asked the royal mathematician how many roses would be needed given the area was 10000 square feet. The mathematician made out an order slip for the gardener. It requested 400 rose bushes and 400 taycheon rose bushes.

report post as inappropriate

I wrote the following on my essay blog area:

I will try to read your essay in the near future. This issue with the Euler formula hinges around the unit circle in the complex plane with

e^{iθ} = cosθ + isinθ,

where this is a way of thinking about trigonometry. the multiplicity of these functions for angles θ → θ + 2π is a part of the reason ln(-x) = ln(x) + iπ, but also the entire set {…, -3iπ, -iπ, iπ, 3iπ, …}. This leads to the concept of Riemann sheets, where the complex plane has multiple copies.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I will try to read your essay in the near future. This issue with the Euler formula hinges around the unit circle in the complex plane with

e^{iθ} = cosθ + isinθ,

where this is a way of thinking about trigonometry. the multiplicity of these functions for angles θ → θ + 2π is a part of the reason ln(-x) = ln(x) + iπ, but also the entire set {…, -3iπ, -iπ, iπ, 3iπ, …}. This leads to the concept of Riemann sheets, where the complex plane has multiple copies.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Branko,

When you say that absolute decidability, calculability and predictability are definitely unattainable goals, I assume you are specifying "absolute" for a reason, especially when you say to use existing knowledge and technology to improve. My qualification is that it may take thousands of years to solve our scientific mystery if we survive that long. I also mention that human failure is an obstacle. Milankovitch cycles and even periodic cycles of the solar system's journey around the MW's core furnish perturbations of comets/asteroids periodically according to some scientists. Enjoyed reading your essay. Hope you get an opportunity before deadline to read mine: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

When you say that absolute decidability, calculability and predictability are definitely unattainable goals, I assume you are specifying "absolute" for a reason, especially when you say to use existing knowledge and technology to improve. My qualification is that it may take thousands of years to solve our scientific mystery if we survive that long. I also mention that human failure is an obstacle. Milankovitch cycles and even periodic cycles of the solar system's journey around the MW's core furnish perturbations of comets/asteroids periodically according to some scientists. Enjoyed reading your essay. Hope you get an opportunity before deadline to read mine: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Dear James Lee Hoover

The text I wrote in the essay should only be an occasion to check the formulas that have been obtained by avoiding the obstacles I mentioned. You are writing similarly about obstacles. A basic university knowledge of mathematics is enough to understand my formulas. When you understand them and also my table from the previous FQX-i contest, then all the mysteries of the universe disappear for you. Then they would realize how right Einstein and Fred Hoyle were.

I have no doubt as to the results I have received.

Sometimes our senses deceive us, so we have to engage our racio to understand what it really is.

Each process also has the opposite process, where the attraction in the environment is repulsion, radiation is the opposite of matter. Somewhere there is mass growth and somewhere there is a decrease.

But, I did not think about these things at all but got them as a result of mathematical calculations.

Just because we see distant galaxies moving apart does not mean that the universe is expanding, because galaxies are transforming too. It is also often the case that scientists invent a problem that they then solve and the problem does not even exist. The mass as it is created may disappear, the same applies to space.

Imagine these opposites:

Observer Huuble with his formula vs Newton with his formulas.

Priest Lemaitre with Big Bang vs priest Rudjer Bošković with his deduction explaining the forces.

Which ones do you bet first or second. I bet on Newton and Bošković.

No Big Bang, there are a lot of smaller bangs.

Regards,

Branko

The text I wrote in the essay should only be an occasion to check the formulas that have been obtained by avoiding the obstacles I mentioned. You are writing similarly about obstacles. A basic university knowledge of mathematics is enough to understand my formulas. When you understand them and also my table from the previous FQX-i contest, then all the mysteries of the universe disappear for you. Then they would realize how right Einstein and Fred Hoyle were.

I have no doubt as to the results I have received.

Sometimes our senses deceive us, so we have to engage our racio to understand what it really is.

Each process also has the opposite process, where the attraction in the environment is repulsion, radiation is the opposite of matter. Somewhere there is mass growth and somewhere there is a decrease.

But, I did not think about these things at all but got them as a result of mathematical calculations.

Just because we see distant galaxies moving apart does not mean that the universe is expanding, because galaxies are transforming too. It is also often the case that scientists invent a problem that they then solve and the problem does not even exist. The mass as it is created may disappear, the same applies to space.

Imagine these opposites:

Observer Huuble with his formula vs Newton with his formulas.

Priest Lemaitre with Big Bang vs priest Rudjer Bošković with his deduction explaining the forces.

Which ones do you bet first or second. I bet on Newton and Bošković.

No Big Bang, there are a lot of smaller bangs.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko L Zivlak!

We think that mathematics can be of two types: essential mathematics (the language of God) and mathematics for modeling - human language.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

report post as inappropriate

We think that mathematics can be of two types: essential mathematics (the language of God) and mathematics for modeling - human language.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Pavel Vadimovich Poluian

Thanks for the comment on my forum. I believe we mean the same thing. When you say: essential mathematics (the language of God) I mean discovered mathematics. When you say: mathematics for modeling - human language, I say invented mathematics. The first is responsible for the universe and us in it.

Regarding your essay, my experience is that some problems do not even need to be posed and therefore not to solve. Thus, for example, the problem of the shape of the universe is a fictional problem. The universe has no shape. The problem of the number of dimensions is also unnecessary. In my mathematical universe I function quite well without dimensions with only three properties mass, radius and time. Some even think that two properties are enough. You deal with time a lot in your essay. It is specific, which can be viewed in two ways. As the inverse value of the frequency, it is, like the frequency, limited. But if we understand it as the flow of time, we get that the universe is eternal, without beginning and end, than it is not limited.

Regards,

Branko

Thanks for the comment on my forum. I believe we mean the same thing. When you say: essential mathematics (the language of God) I mean discovered mathematics. When you say: mathematics for modeling - human language, I say invented mathematics. The first is responsible for the universe and us in it.

Regarding your essay, my experience is that some problems do not even need to be posed and therefore not to solve. Thus, for example, the problem of the shape of the universe is a fictional problem. The universe has no shape. The problem of the number of dimensions is also unnecessary. In my mathematical universe I function quite well without dimensions with only three properties mass, radius and time. Some even think that two properties are enough. You deal with time a lot in your essay. It is specific, which can be viewed in two ways. As the inverse value of the frequency, it is, like the frequency, limited. But if we understand it as the flow of time, we get that the universe is eternal, without beginning and end, than it is not limited.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko!

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, we think the same about two types of mathematics. Just like you. The number of dimensions of space depends on the objective situation that we are modeling. For example, in the theory of relativity four dimensions of Minkowski arose. Regarding the limitations of the Universe in space and time, we believe that Immanuel Kant is right - and the question of finiteness-infinity reveals the boundary of our concepts.

We are always glad to talk about such issues. Thanks you!

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluyan and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, we think the same about two types of mathematics. Just like you. The number of dimensions of space depends on the objective situation that we are modeling. For example, in the theory of relativity four dimensions of Minkowski arose. Regarding the limitations of the Universe in space and time, we believe that Immanuel Kant is right - and the question of finiteness-infinity reveals the boundary of our concepts.

We are always glad to talk about such issues. Thanks you!

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluyan and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"Therefore, the entire universe has finite space, mass and frequency and it is eternal, without preferred spatial center, without spatial boundaries and hence without shape".

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"Therefore, the entire universe has finite space, mass and frequency and it is eternal, without preferred spatial center, without spatial boundaries and hence without shape".

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

You asked

"Are neutrinos solitons?

What is the analogy of a hydrogen atom in another solar system that, for example, has only one planet".

Solitons are all elements of all levels of matter. All of them form gravispheres, which are potential wells. Neutrinos are usually called elements of the orbital electrons of the quark level of matter, which are, for example, elements of molecular bonds and which form orbital potential wells.

The function of the planets is to concentrate the energy of the environment of the physical vacuum in the star to minimize the energy of its interaction with high-speed flows of the environment. This function is similar to the function of electrons in an atom, to protect the nucleus from possible external disturbances.

The other solar system is different, for example, in the same way that the planetary system of Saturn is different from the planetary systems of Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune Mars, Venus and the Earth. Earth has one large satellite, unlike other planets. Universal quantum laws form many variants of gravispheres (potential wells), as well as many complex atoms.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

You asked

"Are neutrinos solitons?

What is the analogy of a hydrogen atom in another solar system that, for example, has only one planet".

Solitons are all elements of all levels of matter. All of them form gravispheres, which are potential wells. Neutrinos are usually called elements of the orbital electrons of the quark level of matter, which are, for example, elements of molecular bonds and which form orbital potential wells.

The function of the planets is to concentrate the energy of the environment of the physical vacuum in the star to minimize the energy of its interaction with high-speed flows of the environment. This function is similar to the function of electrons in an atom, to protect the nucleus from possible external disturbances.

The other solar system is different, for example, in the same way that the planetary system of Saturn is different from the planetary systems of Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune Mars, Venus and the Earth. Earth has one large satellite, unlike other planets. Universal quantum laws form many variants of gravispheres (potential wells), as well as many complex atoms.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.