Dear Amazigh,

(Google translate)

I was all the principles and postulates first applied mathematically and then I realized it was already expressed in words. But nobody, it was not able to express with simple mathematical expressions.

Thanks for your, principled comment and rate.

Regards Branko

Dear Branko,

I like your 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!"

Good work, nice formulae and I am not surprised because I agree with you that everything is linked to the age of the Universe. Do you have a proper theory behind these formulae ? If you haven't then you will find that people will just call it numerology or coincidence (unfortunately).

I have developped a theory that you might find of interest, it could shade some light on your formulae. I also have a lot of formulae and I am sure one could find some correlation with yours.

Let me know what you think.

You can also check out my essay and rate it if you like it.

Good luck with the contest.

Patrick

Hi Branko,

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

Yes, I will write you.

> 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.

Yes, of course, my mistake.

> 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 would like to discuss this further, perhaps after the contest.

> I did not finde Nassim Haramein's geometric derivation of the proton mass and of the gravitational coupling constant.

Sorry, I will try again: try here.

> Thanks to your sugestions I think that relation (2) can be written more simple and acurate as: ...

Yes, this is very nice. My only suggestion is that we should write tau = 2pi. (See the Tau Manifesto by Michael Hartl.) Then the mathematical constants are simply tau, log_2(tau), and e^tau.

> It is most obvious in bits.

Yes, it suggests we are talking about information here. Thank you for this, I hope I can understand what it means for the Software Cosmos.

Hugh

Hi Branko,

I used your formula to determine the uncertainty on gamma, and compared them to the CODATA 2010 uncertainty. I show them here in "concise" form with parentheses:

gamma = 1.001378419187(17) should equal

mn/mp = 1.001378419(89) the CODATA value.

Notice first that the calculation for gamma is within the uncertainty of the CODATA determination, which has an uncertainty for mass of the neutron and mass of the proton of 7.4E-35 kg.

But notice also that the gamma calculation is much more precise than the ratio determined by CODATA:

Uncertainty in gamma = 1.734E-11

Uncertainty in mn/mp = 8.85E-8

In fact, the calculation is 5106 times as precise, so this is a prediction for future determinations by CODATA.

But note that for this analysis, we have calculated the uncertainty in the CODATA mn/mp by using their final values for mn and mp. However, within the CODATA system, the ratio of mn/mp is known more accurately than either the mass of the neutron (mn) or the mass of the proton (mp), so perhaps we have been a bit unfair to CODATA.

On the other hand, in calculating the Zivlak gamma (as I call it) we have used the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton as input values separately. Within CODATA again, their ratio is known more accurately than their values. So we might be able to improve the Zivlak calculation as well.

I will take these considerations into account in the next post.

Hugh

    Hi Branko,

    Using NIST website CODATA values for 2010 and previous years, I have been looking at the accuracy of your formula. I wondered, using older experimental values, how well the formula could predict the currently best known value of mn/mp (i.e. from CODATA 2010).

    First, here is the data I used:

    Year mass_e mass_p mass_n

    1969 9.1095580(540)e-31 kg 1.6726140(110)e-27 kg 1.6749200(110)e-27 kg

    1973 9.1095340(470)e-31 kg 1.6726485(86)e-27 kg 1.6749543(86)e-27 kg

    1986 9.10938970(540)e-31 kg 1.67262310(100)e-27 kg 1.67492860(100)e-27 kg

    1998 9.109381880(720)e-31 kg 1.672621580(130)e-27 kg 1.674927160(130)e-27 kg

    2002 9.10938260(160)e-31 kg 1.67262171(29)e-27 kg 1.67492728(29)e-27 kg

    2006 9.109382150(450)e-31 kg 1.672621637(83)e-27 kg 1.674927211(84)e-27 kg

    2010 9.109382910(400)e-31 kg 1.672621777(74)e-27 kg 1.674927351(74)e-27 kg

    Year 1/alpha mass_p/mass_e mass_n/mass_p

    1969 137.03602(21) 1836.1090(110) 1.001379(13)

    1973 137.036040(110) 1836.15152(70) 1.001379(10)

    1986 137.0359895(61) 1836.152701(37) 1.0013784040(90)

    1998 137.03599976(50) 1836.1526675(39) 1.00137841887(58)

    2002 137.03599911(46) 1836.152667261(85) 1.00137841870(58)

    2006 137.035999679(94) 1836.152667247(80) 1.00137841918(46)

    2010 137.035999074(45) 1836.152667245(75) 1.00137841917(45)

    In 1969 and 1973, the ratio mass_n/mass_p is not reported separately, so it is calculated from the two mass values given.

    In the next table, the "CODATA gamma" is the value given in the particular year. The "Zivlak gamma" is the value obtained by using the experimental values known at the time in the Zivlak equation.

    Year CODATA gamma Zivlak gamma

    1969 1.001379(13) 1.0013784178(53)

    1973 1.001379(10) 1.0013784162(23)

    1986 1.0013784040(90) 1.00137841927(13)

    1998 1.00137841887(58) 1.001378419181(10)

    2002 1.00137841870(58) 1.0013784191948(93)

    2006 1.00137841918(46) 1.0013784191907(19)

    2010 1.00137841917(45) 1.00137841920390(92)

    We now look at the success of the Zivlak equation in predicting the current value (CODATA 2010) for gamma.

    The "CODATA Error" is the difference between the value given at the time (i.e. in 1969 and so on) and the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

    The "Zivlak error" similarily, is the difference between the value that could have been calculated at the time with the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

    The C Error/Z Error column shows the ratio of the CODATA error to the Zivlak error.

    Year CODATA error Zivlak error C/Z Error

    1969 1.3144463E-5 5.790777E-9 2269.8962

    1973 1.0276465E-5 2.7340497E-9 3758.6973

    1986 1.5149118E-8 5.758918E-10 26.305494

    1998 1.0285822E-9 4.5983836E-10 2.2368343

    2002 1.0301803E-9 4.586465E-10 2.2461312

    2006 9.100147E-10 4.5128046E-10 2.016517

    2010 8.9876123E-10 4.5029516E-10 1.995938

    There are several things of note.

    (1) First, note that, for all years, the Zivlak gamma is significantly closer to the current known value than the value that was obtained at the time via the sophisticated methods of CODATA. For example, in 1973, it was 3758 times more accurate (this is partially due to the fact that the mn/mp ratio was not disclosed by CODATA).

    (2) By 1986, the Zivlak equation had produced a value that is more accurate than the value we have from CODATA even today.

    (3) Perhaps most surprisingly, even when we compare the 2010 CODATA value against itself as the gold standard, the Zivlak value is superior. This is because it predicts a (slightly different but very precise) value with very little uncertainty. The larger uncertainty in the 2010 CODATA value means its average error is higher.

    These results suggest that the Zivlak formula for the ratio of neutron to proton mass has real predictive power. Please accept my congratulations for your work on this!

    Hugh

    Thank you, Hugh. It is indeed a pleasure to talk with you.

    Regards,

    Branko

    Hi Branko,

    I am enjoyed reading your essay, and I see your position close to my own approach.

    So, I definitely welcome your work and I intended to study it further (when we will finish this battle!) Then we can examine the details and change our opinions on more reasonable ground. I have rated your work on good score!

    Best wishes,

    George

    Hi Branko,

    Let's try this again, with the tables in LaTeX...

    Using NIST website CODATA values for 2010 and previous years, I have been looking at the accuracy of your formula. I wondered, using older experimental values, how well the formula could predict the currently best known value of mn/mp (i.e. from CODATA 2010).

    First, here is the data I used:

    [math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}

    Year &mass_e &mass_p &mass_n \\

    \hline

    1969 &9.1095580(540)e-31 kg &1.6726140(110)e-27 kg &1.6749200(110)e-27 kg\\

    1973 &9.1095340(470)e-31 kg &1.6726485(86)e-27 kg &1.6749543(86)e-27 kg \\

    1986 &9.10938970(540)e-31 kg &1.67262310(100)e-27 kg &1.67492860(100)e-27 kg\\

    1998 &9.109381880(720)e-31 kg&1.672621580(130)e-27 kg &1.674927160(130)e-27 kg \\

    2002 &9.10938260(160)e-31 kg &1.67262171(29)e-27 kg &1.67492728(29)e-27 kg\\

    2006 &9.109382150(450)e-31 kg&1.672621637(83)e-27 kg &1.674927211(84)e-27 kg\\

    2010 &9.109382910(400)e-31 kg&1.672621777(74)e-27 kg &1.674927351(74)e-27 kg\\

    \end{tabular}[/math]

    [math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}

    Year &1/alpha &mass_p/mass_e &mass_n/mass_p\\

    \hline

    1969 &137.03602(21) &1836.1090(110) &1.001379(13)\\

    1973 &137.036040(110) &1836.15152(70) &1.001379(10)\\

    1986 &137.0359895(61) &1836.152701(37) &1.0013784040(90)\\

    1998 &137.03599976(50) &1836.1526675(39) &1.00137841887(58)\\

    2002 &137.03599911(46) &1836.152667261(85) &1.00137841870(58)\\

    2006 &137.035999679(94) &1836.152667247(80) &1.00137841918(46)\\

    2010 &137.035999074(45) &1836.152667245(75) &1.00137841917(45)\\

    \end{tabular}[/math]

    In 1969 and 1973, the ratio mass_n/mass_p is not reported separately, so it is calculated from the two mass values given.

    In the next table, the "CODATA gamma" is the value given in the particular year. The "Zivlak gamma" is the value obtained by using the experimental values known at the time in the Zivlak equation.

    [math]\begin{tabular}{l l l}

    Year &CODATA \gamma &Zivlak \gamma \\

    \hline

    1969 &1.001379(13) &1.0013784178(53)\\

    1973 &1.001379(10) &1.0013784162(23)\\

    1986 &1.0013784040(90) &1.00137841927(13)\\

    1998 &1.00137841887(58) &1.001378419181(10)\\

    2002 &1.00137841870(58) &1.0013784191948(93)\\

    2006 &1.00137841918(46) &1.0013784191907(19)\\

    2010 &1.00137841917(45) &1.00137841920390(92)\\

    \end{tabular}[/math]

    We now look at the success of the Zivlak equation in predicting the current value (CODATA 2010) for gamma.

    The "CODATA Error" is the difference between the value given at the time (i.e. in 1969 and so on) and the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

    The "Zivlak error" similarily, is the difference between the value that could have been calculated at the time with the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

    The C Error/Z Error column shows the ratio of the CODATA error to the Zivlak error.

    [math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}

    Year &CODATA error &Zivlak Error &C Error/Z Error\\

    \hline

    1969 &1.3144463E-5 &5.790777E-9 &2269.8962\\

    1973 &1.0276465E-5 &2.7340497E-9 &3758.6973\\

    1986 &1.5149118E-8 &5.758918E-10 &26.305494\\

    1998 &1.0285822E-9 &4.5983836E-10 &2.2368343\\

    2002 &1.0301803E-9 &4.586465E-10 &2.2461312\\

    2006 &9.100147E-10 &4.5128046E-10 &2.016517\\

    2010 &8.9876123E-10 &4.5029516E-10 &1.995938\\

    \end{tabular}[/math]

    There are several things of note.

    (1) First, note that, for all years, the Zivlak gamma is significantly closer to the current known value than the value that was obtained at the time via the sophisticated methods of CODATA. For example, in 1973, it was 3758 times more accurate (this is partially due to the fact that the mn/mp ratio was not disclosed by CODATA).

    (2) By 1986, the Zivlak equation had produced a value that is more accurate than the value we have from CODATA even today.

    (3) Perhaps most surprisingly, even when we compare the 2010 CODATA value against itself as the gold standard, the Zivlak value is superior. This is because it predicts a (slightly different but very precise) value with very little uncertainty. The larger uncertainty in the 2010 CODATA value means its average error is higher.

    These results suggest that the Zivlak formula for the ratio of neutron to proton mass has real predictive power. Please accept my congratulations for your work on this!

    Hugh

    Hi Branko,

    Once again...

    Using NIST website CODATA values for 2010 and previous years, I have been looking at the accuracy of your formula. I wondered, using older experimental values, how well the formula could predict the currently best known value of mn/mp (i.e. from CODATA 2010).

    First, here is the data I used:

    [math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}\\ Year &mass_e &mass_p &mass_n \\ \hline\\ 1969 &9.1095580(540)e-31 kg &1.6726140(110)e-27 kg&1.6749200(110)e-27 kg\\ 1973 &9.1095340(470)e-31 kg &1.6726485(86)e-27 kg &1.6749543(86)e-27 kg \\ 1986 &9.10938970(540)e-31 kg &1.67262310(100)e-27 kg &1.67492860(100)e-27 kg\\ 1998 &9.109381880(720)e-31 kg&1.672621580(130)e-27 kg &1.674927160(130)e-27 kg\\ 2002 &9.10938260(160)e-31 kg &1.67262171(29)e-27 kg &1.67492728(29)e-27 kg\\ 2006 &9.109382150(450)e-31 kg&1.672621637(83)e-27 kg &1.674927211(84)e-27 kg\\ 2010 &9.109382910(400)e-31 kg&1.672621777(74)e-27 kg &1.674927351(74)e-27 kg\\ \end{tabular}[/math]

    [math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}\\Year &1/alpha &mass_p/mass_e &mass_n/mass_p\\ \hline \\1969 &137.03602(21) &1836.1090(110) &1.001379(13)\\ 1973 &137.036040(110) &1836.15152(70) &1.001379(10)\\ 1986 &137.0359895(61)&1836.152701(37) &1.0013784040(90)\\ 1998 &137.03599976(50) &1836.1526675(39) &1.00137841887(58)\\ 2002 &137.03599911(46)&1836.152667261(85) &1.00137841870(58)\\ 2006 &137.035999679(94) &1836.152667247(80) &1.00137841918(46)\\ 2010 &137.035999074(45) &1836.152667245(75) &1.00137841917(45)\\ \end{tabular}[/math]

    In 1969 and 1973, the ratio mass_n/mass_p is not reported separately, so it is calculated from the two mass values given.

    In the next table, the "CODATA gamma" is the value given in the particular year. The "Zivlak gamma" is the value obtained by using the experimental values known at the time in the Zivlak equation.

    [math]\begin{tabular}{l l l} \\ Year &CODATA \gamma &Zivlak \gamma \\ \hline \\1969 &1.001379(13) &1.0013784178(53)\\ 1973&1.001379(10) &1.0013784162(23)\\ 1986 &1.0013784040(90) &1.00137841927(13)\\ 1998 &1.00137841887(58) &1.001378419181(10)\\ 2002 &1.00137841870(58) &1.0013784191948(93)\\ 2006 &1.00137841918(46) &1.0013784191907(19)\\ 2010 &1.00137841917(45) &1.00137841920390(92)\\ \end{tabular}[/math]

    We now look at the success of the Zivlak equation in predicting the current value (CODATA 2010) for gamma.

    The "CODATA Error" is the difference between the value given at the time (i.e. in 1969 and so on) and the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

    The "Zivlak error" similarily, is the difference between the value that could have been calculated at the time with the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

    The C Error/Z Error column shows the ratio of the CODATA error to the Zivlak error.

    [math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}\\ Year &CODATA error &Zivlak Error &C Error/Z Error\\ \hline \\ 1969 &1.3144463E-5 &5.790777E-9 &2269.8962\\ 1973 &1.0276465E-5 &2.7340497E-9 &3758.6973\\1986 &1.5149118E-8&5.758918E-10 &26.305494\\ 1998 &1.0285822E-9 &4.5983836E-10&2.2368343\\ 2002 &1.0301803E-9 &4.586465E-10 &2.2461312\\ 2006 &9.100147E-10 &4.5128046E-10 &2.016517\\ 2010 &8.9876123E-10 &4.5029516E-10 &1.995938\\ \end{tabular}[/math]

    There are several things of note.

    (1) First, note that, for all years, the Zivlak gamma is significantly closer to the current known value than the value that was obtained at the time via the sophisticated methods of CODATA. For example, in 1973, it was 3758 times more accurate (this is partially due to the fact that the mn/mp ratio was not disclosed by CODATA).

    (2) By 1986, the Zivlak equation had produced a value that is more accurate than the value we have from CODATA even today.

    (3) Perhaps most surprisingly, even when we compare the 2010 CODATA value against itself as the gold standard, the Zivlak value is superior. This is because it predicts a (slightly different but very precise) value with very little uncertainty. The larger uncertainty in the 2010 CODATA value means its average error is higher.

    These results suggest that the Zivlak formula for the ratio of neutron to proton mass has real predictive power. Please accept my congratulations for your work on this!

    Hugh

    Hi George,

    Thank you for kind words.I saw your opinion and I am redy for colaborations.

    After this battle or I will say Forum.

    Regards,

    Branko

    Dear Branko,

    I have a long standing interest in the physics of time measurements in its connection to arithmetic. You can have a look when you have time

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0510044

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0304101

    Your present essay is very interesting and your formulas are impressive although they seem to arise from nowhere. I will be interested to understand more in the future. From my experience in the physics of low frequency fluctuations in arbitrary natural systems, I have the feeling that your approach with cycles is different from others that presuppose a stationary universe. On the other hand they are at least two alternative views for deriving constants in this FQXI contest (Patrick Tonin and Angel Doz). I wonder if any bridge can be obtained with their approach.

    If you still have time you may have a look at my present essay which is on a different taste.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

    Best wishes,

    Michel

    Zivlak,

    As a farmer and horseman for my 53 years of life, I have great appreciation for meteorology and the advances it has made in the last forty+ years. I have approached this contest, as well as the habit of trying to comprehend nature, from a naturalistic and non-academic position. I started reading texts on physics out of a very basic desire to make sense of the natural and civil world in which I existed. For some reason, I seemed to sense it was misguided by the late 80's.

    The specific point of departure was in reading books on cosmology, the point was made that the expansion of the universe was nearly, if not completely balanced by the force of gravity. Omega+1, was how it was described. It immediately occurred to me this would be far more easily and efficiently explained by a cosmic convection cycle, that the whole expanding universe/inflationary cosmology idea.

    Simply put, the space between galaxies expands and it is matched by the fact these galaxies are gravity wells, that pull in this expanding space.

    Now I have spent the last two and a half decades filling in the many gaps in this initial insight, so I won't bother you with the whole model, but just some of the highlights

    For one thing, the idea of an expanding universe is based on the assumption of spacetime as a causal property; That there is this underlaying geometry of space that warps and weaves.

    In my journey, it occurred to me the problem with our understanding of time is that we experience it as a sequence of events and in its reductionistic philosophy, physics treats it as a measure of duration. The problem is our perception is only a reflection of what is actually happening. It is not a vector from past events to succeeding ones, but the dynamic process by which potential is distilled into actual, ie. the future becoming present and then past. For example, the earth is not traveling some metadimension from yesterday to tomorrow, rather tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. This makes time an effect of action, like temperature, rather then some foundational basis for it, like space. It was the topic of my last yearsentry, so I won't go into it here.

    Another point I make about the expanding universe theory is that it contains a very basic internal contradiction 1) Space is what you measure with a ruler. 2) Space expands. 3) Eventually distant galaxies will become invisible, as their light takes ever longer to reach us. The fallacy here is that our ruler of intergalactic space is the speed of light, as in how far it travels in a year. So if the distance between galaxies is increasing in term of lightyears, that is not expanding space, but increasing distance, in the otherwise stable units of lightyears. Daryl Janzen and I had a rather long debate(Jul. 8, 2013 @ 02:39) over this issue, if you want an example of the response it elicits.

    So I think that eventually it will be decided that photons do not travel as point particles, but expand when released from mass and are absorbed within atomic structure at points and as quanta. There have been a number of essays at FQXI discussing aspects of this.(1,2)

    So what we have is light and radiation expanding out from galaxies, eventually to cool off/coalesce and fall back in as increasingly dense forms of mass. Gravity then, it not so much a separate force or particle, but the vacuum effect thus created. Much as releasing energy from mass creates significant pressure. Both can be modeled geometrically. So it is just the varied effects of this energy expanding and contracting in a cosmic convection cycle; The same process defining activity on this planet, atmospherically and geologically, as well as all other cosmic bodies. Why wouldn't it apply to galaxies as well?

    I will leave it at this for the moment, but just consider some of the patches currently required to keep the current model on life support, from inflation to dark energy.

    Regards,

    John Merryman

      Omega=1

      than the whole expanding universe/inflationary cosmology idea.

      Dear Branko,

      I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

      I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. i think your thread was one affected by this.

      I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes to rate you very highly, so will do so now, in case of further bugs. Hope it helps!

      Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

      Best wishes,

      Antony

        Dear Patrick,

        (Google translate)

        Thank you for the kind words.

        There are some opinions that the Newtonian gravitational formula is approximate. Nevertheless we use it because it always gives good results. My and the Newton formula have the same source. The source is whole and its relationship with the parts. Thus, the formulas and hundreds of others (some in my table), the principle of feedback confirms each other. So I say that, Newton's gravitational formula is exact, valid for the specified domain length and force. Outside this domain, is interrupted and then apply Coulomb formula. Actually it's the same formula with the break. It can be seen on Boskovichs force curve.

        Instead of the word equation or formula, I intentionally use the relation because of the way I came up to it. I also think that the determination of the relation between the fundamental physical constants easiest way to realize whole.

        My relationship is not numerological. Part is explained here, part im the essay.

        I saw a lot of numerology published in ArXiv. They are very happy to get the result with four significant digits are correct. My article, do not want to publish with 12 significant digit accurate.

        About your article later.

        Regards

        Branko

        Hi Branko,

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

        Yes, I will write you.

        > 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.

        Yes, of course, my mistake.

        > 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 would like to discuss this further, perhaps after the contest.

        > I did not finde Nassim Haramein's geometric derivation of the proton mass and of the gravitational coupling constant.

        Sorry, I will try again: try here.

        > Thanks to your sugestions I think that relation (2) can be written more simple and acurate as: ...

        Yes, this is very nice. My only suggestion is that we should write tau = 2pi. (See the Tau Manifesto by Michael Hartl.) Then the mathematical constants are simply tau, log_2(tau), and e^tau.

        > It is most obvious in bits.

        Yes, it suggests we are talking about information here. Thank you for this work, I hope I can understand what it means for the Software Cosmos.

        Hugh

        Hi Branko,

        One more thing... I used your formula to determine the error bounds on gamma, and compared them to the CODATA 2010 error bounds. You can see the errors in parentheses here:

        gamma = 1.001378419187(17) should equal

        mn/mp = 1.001378419(89) the CODATA value.

        Notice first that the calculation for gamma is within the error bounds of the CODATA determination, (which has an uncertainty for mass_n and mass_p of 7.4E-35 kg).

        But notice also that the gamma calculation is much more precise than the ratio determined by CODATA.

        Errors ratio in gamma = 1.73E-11 (calculated)

        Error ratio in mn/mp = 8.85E-8 (CODATA)

        In fact, the calculation is 5106 times as precise, so this value of gamma is a prediction for future determinations by CODATA. When I get some time, I will use your formula with older values for the CODATA constants and see how well it would have predicted the current values.

        Hugh

        Dear Hugh,

        (Google translate)

        About Nassim Haramein:

        I'm skeptical, what's going on Schwartzshild radius. All just talk about gravity. As if on that radius, repulsions indifferently waiting, what do attraction? We can talk about after the contest but it takes a very good grasp of Rudjer Boskovich.

        About 2pi

        I am known about the proposal (tau). Unfortunately I need three alphabets. Tau is used for tau (particle). It would be good to expand the application of tau manifesto.

        Regards,

        Branko

        Dear Hugh

        Thank you very much Hugh.

        You are the furthest in understanding of my concept.

        To the accuracy of the CODATA is something I expect, someone to do that, using my concept. I would be very happy to do you, with my wholehearted support. There is no reason that most of the values in the table CODATA is not with the same accuracy as the Rydberg constant. I'm not familiar with all the rules and procedures for obtaining CODATA value so that I can accurately understand your results, but I know principle.

        It would also help, according to the principle of feedback, my concept to understand Phd. physics, or to begin to stop treating me like a monkey who entered their territory, (one said that my formula is curiosity).

        In fact, the calculation is 5106 times as precise (maybe acurate insted precise).

        I will be very glad that you review my next work before publication.

        Regards,

        Branko