Hi Antony,

I have no solution for the mass ratio of charged leptons. I can send you a improved version of Koida formula to 3 orders of magnitude. But even then it remains speculative, unexplained and not precise. My relation between the electron proton and neutron fit rationally in hundreds of other relations that are not shown in the essay. Because this relationship has all the significant digits are correct.Or rather: because the base of relation bit, it has all the significant digits are correct.

    Respectfully Mr. Zivlak,

    Your introduction states: "The objective is to present the implementation of the concept of one unique dynamic Universe having the bit at its core. As I stated in my essay BITTERS, One real unique Universe is eternally occurring, once.

    Unfortunately, you do not seem to know what the words one and unique mean. Unique, once is not an abstract concept for an abstract concept can be pluralized and because of this a concept cannot be unique. Unique, once cannot be dynamic for dynamic is a humanly contrived abstract evaluation. Unique, once cannot have a real identifiable core of any description. Unique, once is not "information." Unique, once is not "cyclicity." Unique, once is not "dimensionless quantities" and unique, once does not have a "quantum nature."

    You almost got the real Universe right, once.

    Respectfully Mr.Fisher,

    English is not my mother tongue, but here I think you're focusing on my descriptions too much, while if you put your focus on my formulas, presuming that you genuinely understood physics, you would find my calculations sufficient and absolutely understand what I wanted to say.

    Zivlak

    12 days later
    6 days later

    Hi Branko,

    Thank you for your interesting formulas. I noticed what may be a couple of typos as I checked your calculations.

    1. In your Equation (2) If we write the equation as:

    ln gamma = x/ln(y)

    where x and y are complicated expressions, it seems that the result you calculate is actually

    x/y

    rather than x/ln(y).

    2. In your Equation (4) there appears to be a typo in the exponent of 2. Do you mean:

    2^(-cy/4-p/4) instead of 2^(-c/4-p/4) ?

    3. I will be looking at the formulas in your table later. Do you have a theory that provides a model for these formulas?

    Hugh

    Dear Hugh,

    (Google translate)

    Thank you for your careful reading of my article.

    I noticed an error in the formula (4). Then I said, it's good to be seen

    will anyone carefully read the article? You are. And you saw the typo in (2) too.

    Equation (2) can be written in different ways. Perhaps the following would be closer to the topic contest as used for the logarithm base 2 (Bit).

    gama=2^{[cy/2+p/2+3*log(2pi,2)/2] / [1+137.035999074^2*log(mi,2)]}= 1.00137841920431

    Theory (rather Methodology) exists.

    The article listed some of the methods and postulates (on nine pages could not be more), which allowed obtaining the relation (2), and hundreds of other relations.

    You say (where x and y are complicated expressions). What would you say then for tensor Lie algebra ...in other articles?

    My methodology requires only the knowledge of the seven basic mathematical operations. Unfortunately, many scientists skipped seventh operation (guess which one), and use the extensive math, that few dedicated understand. Basically, my methodology is simple. Thus, the formula (2) is simple, especially if you shorten giving physical meaning of individual members. Part, can be seen in my articles on viXra.org.

    Regards,

    Branko

      Dear Branco,

      You have written your essay in a clear and concise manner. You have given primary importance to It (matter) and combined with Bit gives us reality. Similar sort of conclusion is also reached by me in my essay. Your derivation of the mass of elementary particles is something amazing and innovative. Your conclusion "that parts are dependent on the whole (Universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts!" sums up the theme of the essay. I appreciate you for originality in your approach, especially, in treating the age of the universe in terms of cycles. Boscovich's theory of natural philosophy has not earned the recognition it ought to have earned due to lack of publicity.

      Thanks for producing such a readable essay and I would like to rate it above 8 after you read my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. I, hope, you will give importance to this.

      All the best in the essay contest,

      Sreenath

      Dear Sreenath,

      (Google translate)

      It's nice to see that someone has understood the essence of my essay. Thank you for your careful reading.

      You said:

      Your conclusion "that parts are dependent on the whole (universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts!" Sums up the theme of the essay.

      To be honest in the same way many conclusions are formulated and can probably be subsumed under the famous Mach Principle.

      Treating the age of the universe in terms of cycles:

      Actually, I was not begin of it .I received cycles as a result of my calculating. Then the principle of feedback helped to further understanding of the whole.

      You said:

      Boscovich's theory of natural philosophy has not earned the recognition it ought to have earned due to lack of publicity.

      Boscovich was a very well known and respected European man in his time. The problem is that modern science continues to pursue some of the solutions that are full of paradoxes and anomalies. Young scientists would do well if solutions for their research look for in Boskovich natural philosophy. Boskovich saw many more than just atomic orbitals that he anticipated almost two centuries before it was discovered.

      Rating is not important. It is important that my relation (2) began to live its life (without typos noted by Mr. Hugh Matlock). I shall read your essay carefully once more.

      Regards,

      Branko

      Hello Branko,

      I read your deep and original essays with great interest because I saw the title essay is a very important concept «Cyclicity», but also because you are a meteorologist with the vast experience and research. An essay written by a beautiful language and it is easy to read. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions. I totally agree with you: «It is crucial to accept the important role of cyclicity in the Universe. The cyclicity and the bit lead to reality, which is presented by the relations between physical constants. »

      Your campaign is very clear to understand and explain the universe:

      «Information, Cyclicity, Dimensionless quantities, The quantum nature of the Universe» . You take the weapons for research is not simply Occam's razor, and Occam's razor sharp.

      Perfect conclusion: «Of great importance in this article is, I hope the widely-accepted view, that parts are dependent on the whole (Universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts !The key novelty introduced in this article is the treatment of the life of the Universe as the cycle, and not as the age of the Universe. Therefore, the Cycle of the Universe perceived in that way has the same age at any moment as in any other previous moment. The time is related to the existence of matter (substance) and without it does not make sense.»

      My rating of your essay- «happy nine». Please look at my essay and fair vote.

      Best regards,

      Vladimir

      Branko,

      I found your essay truly original and imaginative. A most noteworthy effort. What caught my eye was your ending equation 'y= 2x'. Although you have a different approach than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

      I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

      Regards,

      Manuel

      Dear Vladimir,

      (Google translate)

      Thank you for your nice words.

      very important concept «Cyclicity»

      Actually, I was not begin of it . I received cycles as a result of my calculating. Then the principle of feedback helped to further understanding of the whole. I ask cosmologists: If Universe is not in Cycle where ciclycity cease (at Galaxies, or at Clasters, Filaments)¬? Where?

      Perfect conclusion:

      To be honest in the same way many conclusions are formulated and can probably be subsumed under the famous Mach Principle.

      Becouse I made typo in my relation (2, I write one ln more) please note following.

      Equation (2) can be written in different ways. Perhaps the following would be closer to the topic contest as used for the logarithm base 2 (Bit).

      gama=2^{[cy/2+p/2+3*log(2pi,2)/2] / [1+137.035999074^2*log(mi,2)]}= 1.00137841920431

      Thank you for your vote.

      Regards,

      Branko

      Branko,

      I found your essay very interesting and your introduction of the works of Prof. Cadez, Milankovic and especially Boscovic fascinating. I completely agree with you that parts, as an integral components of the whole, are dependent on the whole just as much as the whole dependent on its parts. Or, put in the terms of information, any individual part acquires meaning only in the context of the whole.

      I confess that I did not follow your computations closely but assumed they were right as you presented. Instead I followed your novel ideas of using dimensionless quantities to derive the length of the Cycle of the Universe, and especially that in the context of the Cycle of the Universe, at any given moment, its age is perceived as in any other moment. Does not this imply that the Universe is eternal? And if so, do you think it had a beginning? I.e. was there the first cycle?

      You did not elaborate whether the Cycle of the Universe is the only time cycle, but I concur with you that cyclic processes underlie the reality. In my essay The Play of Mind in Emptiness I also speak of loops at the heart of recursive processes from which reality perpetually generated anew. I invite you to please read it and rate it :)

      Vasilyeva,

      (Google translate)

      Thank you for your carefull reading of may essay.

      What can be more symple than dimensionless quantities. If two dimensionless quantities

      are constant, their ratio is constant as well. We just need to find the rule of that relationship.

      Yes it imply that the Universe is eternal. But phenomena are final. So I define mass = 1, lenght = 1, Time Cycle= 1.

      For our dominant materialistic perception of the world, the first cycle is related to the proton. Mathematically, there is a two pi as the first cycle. And that is the beginning.

      But there are also as you say. This richness in variety of natures ability to capture various kinds of information out there makes us realize that we know of It only through bits our senses can deliver.

      Yes I did not elaborate whether the Cycle of the Universe is the only time cycle. I said that in my Conclusion. That is a grate question ( about that, it is interesting to look in Hindu

      mitology).

      in some other way you also talk about cycles. I have already realized that your article is interesting, accurate and rated it.

      Regards,

      Branko

        Hello Akinbo,

        Thank you for the kind words about my essay. I did not succeed to access your blog.

        If you think of the particle, no particles having dimensions of Planck length.

        For me, it is the smallest distance at which two elementary particles can come closer. In this sense it is a very real size. If you study the Rudjer Boskovich, you will see much more. He is at the level of atoms, anticipated many things the two centuries before Planck and Bohr.

        If you send me your email I can send you shortened version of his work, as the original is very difficult to read.

        Regards,

        Branko