Dear Basudeba,
I agree with you that: "The validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency and that of a physical statement on its correspondence to reality." Regarding your example that "1200 = -1250", I consider it a legitimate author's responsibility to show the formula derivation process and to accompany the result by official data or at least by the data from the literature that support the statement. For that reason, I have included the CODATA values right next to my results whenever possible.
I agree with your statement: "Whole is not the linear sum of its parts." Your stance is that: "Mass is related to the number of protons, neutrons and electrons." Let me point out that in my table the relation between the mass of the Universe and the proton mass is a dimensionless number showing the relation between those masses and not suggesting that that is the number of protons in the Universe. Nowhere did I sum up masses in order to obtain the mass of the Universe as a whole, since I am not familiar with the distribution of particles in the Universe according to their type.
Your sentence: "For this reason, we want to understand the basic justification of your initial equation (1) because if the initial basis is correct; then only all subsequent derivatives will be correct," can be rephrased to state: "Since it has been demonstrated that all the output data is correct, it can be concluded that the initial basis is correct." If you have an apple, you can divide it in whichever way you like, and I divided it in the manner (1). There are several more rational reasons, but it is not suitable for me to elaborate them here. What can be put under doubt and should be further examined are the assumptions expressed in formulas (7) and (11a).
CODATA does not publish the data for the total mass and radius of the Universe. I obtained that data using the assumption that the formulas (7) and (11a) are true. I have not presented those values from the literature, but you can easily find them and compare them to mine. Those values are not even important, as they depend on the system of units of measurement used. The only thing that is vital are the relations that rule among the physical quantities and it is important that everyone agrees that those values are finite. The fine-structure constant will long remain a mystery. The speed of light is by definition in vacuum, but there really is confusion with the use of that term. The basis of that speed has been known for a long time and there is no need for me to add anything on that topic. Parts of cosmos are expanding, but not starting from the singularity, which is mathematically and physically impossible. That is proven in my table.
As you say: "Your base 2 logarithm [...] may be a useful tool." You can assure yourself that that is exactly the case in my paper.
Regarding infinity you state: "No mathematics is possible with infinity, as all operations involving it will have undefined dimensions - thus indistinguishable from each other." That is fine. I have no problem with infinity in my concept as you can see in my table.
As for the 15 decimal points, that is the limit of all commercial spreadsheet software such as Excel and I did note that in my paper. However, that only implies that the accuracy achieved would only be greater if we used some more precise software allowing more decimal points. Feel free to check a formula of your choice in the Wolfram Alpha software, for example.
Concerning e and pi, you can see that I have used both more frequently than it is the case in contemporary science. I consider it justifiable, since the results show it as well. I have no prejudices regarding the use of e and pi.
When it comes to circular orbits, I could agree with you. Exactly by using the relations among physical constants I avoided having to consider that difficult issue of the orbit shape.
As for the exponent p, I did not make an assumption, I presented a fact which can be easily checked through comparison of the available data about the number of protons and the proton mass in relation to the approximate mass of the Universe. The assumption is in the formula (7). Maybe a better term instead of the "Cycle of the Universe" would be "Time Cycle of the Universe" or only "Time Cycle", in order to avoid confusion. My key motivation was to avoid using the term "Age of the Universe", which I consider inappropriate.
Regarding your statement "proton as the originator of matter creation in a narrower sense", I will point out just one fact here. Hydrogen is the most common element, with just one proton in the nucleus. Of course, you can start determining the relations from any particle, but the easiest route is by starting from the proton. The only way to justify the universality is through results and the power of prediction of a certain concept. That is how there are considerations that Newton's gravitation equation is approximation. That formula persists owing to countless confirmations, although we should admit that the value of the universal gravitational constant is known with a small number of significant digits.
For the number of Planck's oscillators, just make a small dimensional analysis in the formula (16) and you will see that it is a dimensionless number just as in (17), where it is obvious.
The mass, radius and Cycle of the Universe are finite, which means that it is possible to define the system of natural units of measurement in such a way that the maximum value of each of the mentioned properties is 1. Therefore, I am talking about the whole mass, whole length and whole Cycle: the mass does not refer solely to the sum of protons, neutrons and electrons. You said yourself that mere addition is not possible. I clearly defined the Cycle of the Universe as Tu=Ru/c, and not as you suggest through the time evolution. Yes, I assigned a mass to each level, just as you can for example assign a total mass to a system consisting of two solid bodies in the center of mass, even though there is nothing in the center of mass.
And finally, I do not expect any new concept to be easily understandable after the first reading. Just ask yourself whether one of the following utterances is true for my concept:
Derived values are different or rough approximations of the observed values (which of the two);
Derived values have been adjusted to match the experimentally obtained values;
This concept and/or the accepted concepts of contemporary science produce paradoxes (which of them);
The derived values in my concept are pure coincidence;
Or you simply prefer some other concept?
Regards,
Branko