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 :)

Dear Manuel,

Thank you for your nice words.

I also found your essay truly original and inovative. The second reason is nice presentation and grafic.

Regards,

Branko

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 Branko,

    I just read your essay. Very nice and will get a good rating. I saw your table at the end. The question I have for you is whether the Planck length is physically real or a geometric fiction? If you don't mind you can reply at my blog.

    Thanks,

    Akinbo

    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

      Thank you Branko for answering my questions and for having read my essay :)

      -Marina

      • [deleted]

      • Post #30

      Dear Branko,

      Thank you for asking me such a good question on my essay.

      Your question is very relevant when we are in the centre of the universe. You remember, the discussions; Earth is at the centre. Sun is not at the centre of universe. Sun is not even at the centre of Milky way.

      Our observable universe depends on power of telescopes. The higher the power of new telescopes, the higher will the observable radius.

      When we are at the centre of the universe, then we will see the part of the universe go up one side and universe will go down another side. As our observations are limited, we can see only part movements.

      Probably we are at off centre of universe. We have to do large scale n-body simulations.

      Hence at present with the observed data , it is difficult to say, where exactly the cyclicity cease (at Galaxies, or at Clusters, Filaments). . . .

      Thanks to FQXi for providing us such discussion forum.

      What do you say?

      Best

      =snp

      Branko

      This is my attitude to Planck length.

      http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0191

      Yuri

      Hello Branko

      Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

      (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

      said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

      I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

      The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

      Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

      Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

      I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

      Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

      Good luck and good cheers!

      Than Tin

      Hi Yuri,

      First of all, thank you for inviting me to participate in this interesting competition.

      Of course there are many ways to explain the Planck length. I am to Mr. Okinbo briefly, in one sentence pointed out what I think is most important. I think the Rudjer Boskovich seen that length in item "a" of His power curve (Figure 1) in my work. That's why; to you and others I suggest studying his work. Someone who saw the atomic orbit and Planck length, two centuries before Bohr and Planck saw many more.

      I read your article first day and I shall rate it last day.

      All the best in the essay contest,

      Regards,

      Branko

      Dear Anonymous Satyavarapu,

      I am convinced that the cyclicity, ceases (nor in clusters, nor in filaments). Even the whole the Universe is cyclical. There is no logical reason to stop cyclicity at any level of the organization of matter. The question of the center of the universe raises the question of shape the universe. Presentation the Universe on National Geographic TV in form of a sphere for me is more ridiculous than fear of Columbus sailors, what happens when they reach the end of the flat earth. There is no privileged center, nor the edge of the Universe.

      Regards,

      Branko

      Dear Branco,

      Still there is no response from you regarding comments on my essay and I would like to give you maximum possible rating on your innovative essay as I have promised although you care least for rating essays. So, please, rate my essay and inform me in my thread as it is very important for me.

      All the best,

      Sreenath

      Dear Than Tin,

      Something similar to you, I said in my article:

      (Of course, this does not mean that I am proposing a new stereotype or that these four postulates are sufficient for explaining the functioning of the Universe. The results can be obtained in different ways.)

      If you read my article you will see that Simplicity, expresed with Occams razor, is my main tool in computing my relation (2).

      Plancks constant and Planck units I expresed in the table 1. in my article.

      So, I expect your comment, on relation (2) and Table 1.

      Regards,

      Branko

      Hi Branko,

      I am happy to report that I did not find any typos in the formulas in the table. You wrote:

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

      I would say "very complicated expressions". :)

      > Thus, the formula (2) is simple, especially if you shorten giving physical meaning of individual members.

      I will take a look at your vixra papers for that.

      It seems to me that all of the Planck formulas in the table follow from the definitions of the terms and the scaling factor that you use. BTW, I noticed that the scaling factor you use, i.e.

      2^(-cy/4 - p/4) (2pi)^(-3/4) = 1.2512639e-61

      can also be written as:

      [8 pi^3 2^cy M_n]^(-1/4)

      where M_n is the number of protons in the Universe (i.e. mass_universe / mass_proton). Perhaps that will give you additional insight.

      I think that you might like Nassim Haramein's paper which includes a geometric derivation of the proton mass and of the gravitational coupling constant.

      I wonder if there is a connection between your formulas and the hyperspherical structure that I discuss in my Software Cosmos essay.

      Hugh

      Hi Hugh,

      Thank you for the excellent substantive discussions by taking on the occasion of my article.

      Could you please send me your email so I can give you the formulas in the right form?

      The form of the formula that you gave is also possible. Value p is, by definition, the logarithm to the base two (mass of the universe / proton mass ). But I avoid using the term the number of protons in the universe, because I think that this is not the same as the ratio of masses of the Universe / proton. Not all masses of the Universe are in the proton.

      My approach is very similar to hyperspherical structure that you discuss in Software Cosmos essay. I think I found a simpler approach, but it is essentially the same idea.I did not finde Nassim Haramein's geometric derivation of the proton mass and of the gravitational coupling constant. Thanks to your sugestions I think that relation (2) can be written more simple and acurate as:

      [math]\gamma= 2^{(cy+p+3t)/(2+2a^{2}m)}=1.0013784192[/math]

      Where mathematical constant are:

      [math]2\pi=6.2831853, t=log(2\pi,2)=2.6514961295, cy=e^{2\pi}= 535.4916555248 [/math]

      Physical constants:

      [math]a=1/\alpha=137.035999074, \mu=1836.15267245,m=log(\mu,2)=10.8424703056[/math]

      Also:

      [math]p=log(Mu/mp,2)=cy/2-(\mu/a+1)/(\mu/a+2)-1=265.8107668189[/math]

      It is most obvious in bits.

      Regards Branko

        Branco,

        An exceptional essay, not just "well organised and practical" as you wished, but incisive and inspirational. I've also discussed how we're "Overwhelmed by information overload." Of course it helps that we agree on much, though our approaches to those truths couldn't be more different. I derived the dynamic cyclic (and ~fractal) universe (Helical CMB Asymmetry) and feedback before the complexity I discuss this year. There are also analogies in Hindu and Mayan cultures.

        In terms of agreement I'm also a massive fan of Boscovich and 'non point' reality, but I learnt more from your essay, including a link with my point/circle correspondence for uncertainty. I've also found the Cartesian system inadequate for modelling evolution of interaction.

        Your agreement with Klein last year is also warming as I find an almost infinitely hierarchical and recursive series of equivalent backgrounds for discerning maximum speed (as my last 3 essays).

        Your mathematical derivations look quite brilliant. But I'm now no expert. What I am interested in is how you may find we can bridge the gap to decode the 'noise' of higher orders where uncertainty resides. I also commend the McHarris essay on chaos to read.

        I agree your work is of great value, but will it be noticed and read? It certainly gets full points from me to get it up the list (though my last two finished 7th and were overlooked!!). I hope yours may anyway help produce a recursive mathematical description consistent with my ontology and closing the gap between current binary maths and nature.

        Very well done and best wishes in rising from the information swamp.

        Peter

        Dear Branko,

        After reading your essay :

        Yes, Branko : « 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! »

        « whole, parts », two opposites.

        Bits and cycles :

        · Information

        · Cyclicity

        · Dimensionless quantities

        · The quantum nature of the Universe

        You are right. You'll be surprised one day to discover how your views are right.

        My theory begins with the first principle : eDuality.

        But I do not develop it here. A will publish a book.

        One single principle leads the Universe.

        Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

        is under the influence of this principle.

        Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

        I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

        but the main part is coming soon.

        Thank you, and good luck!

        I rated your essay highly accordingly to my appreciation.

        Please visit My essay.