Dear Mr. Gupta

Thank you for your nice words.

I Understand your English very good.

3. About: No Homogeneity - Homogeneity is statistical tool. Then if you have better deterministic tool you do not need Homogenity. Of Course, Every statistic is uncertain. Incorrect use of statistics leads to erroneous conclusions. This does not mean that it should be dismissed in the absence of better tools.

5. About: No collisions between bodies; Boscovich J. R.: (a) "Theoria philosophia naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium", first (Wien, 1758) and second (Venetiis, 1763) edition in Latin language; (b) "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

7. About: No imaginary -Planck units also do not exist, but we are using them.

8. About: No differential and Integral - http://vixra.org/author/temur_z_kalanov

9. About: No General Relativity - General Relativity nobody understand, but there are something in GR that nobody grasp. Please look:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/6710

You will see that Lorentz factor, gama can be very big, as for proton.

Similary, in my Theory any structure has its ratio acording to Whole. So, the Lorentz factor (transformation) is missunderstood in Big Bang Theory.

More at your post.

Regards,

Branko

    Dear Branko,

    I read with interest your deep and interesting essay. You continue to study an important topic - the nature of fundamental constants and provided important ideas. calculations and conclusions on the issue of "part and whole", which is fundamental to basic science and understanding of the structure of our Universe.

    Yours faithfully,Vladimir

    Branko,

    I do not remember reading your previous essays. Perhaps I read them and don't recall doing so, or perhaps I simply did not read them.

    I'm not sure what to write here. You are onto something, but I'm not sure what that something is. Your exp(2*pi) term is similar to the scalar term in my essay. In fact, in the ratio between the mass of the proton and the mass of the electron, I need to use a value of exp(pi).

    You have a collection of interesting relations. But were they derived based upon an underlying principle or were they determined by fiddling with the various terms to find something interesting? If they were derived from an underlying principle, then it is better to present that principle first and then guide the reader through the development of the relations.

    You use logarithms based upon base 2. This is very peculiar for Math and/or Physics. Almost everything is usually expressed using natural logarithms.

    I'm not clear about your definition of cycles. If the term "c" represents the speed of light, then "y" is simply the inverse of a velocity. Or, you might intend for cy to be read together as an abbreviation for cycles. In either case, your usage of the word cycle is not consistent with everyone else's understanding of the word. Most of the readers on the site will understand a cycle to be an interval of 2*pi.

    Proton shift itself is an empirical value. It is dimensionless, so you're ok there. But it requires a reference value and a magnetic field. The magnetic field is what produces the proton shift. The proton shift has a value dependent upon the magnetic field used rather than a single value. What you present appears to have a single value. Therefore, your understanding of the meaning for "proton shift" is not the understanding of meaning that readers will have.

    BTW, you cannot have data that is more accurate than CODATA data.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

    Dear Mr. Simpson

    You are an honest man, open mind. You say: "You are onto something," which means that you are on the first steps to understand my Theory on what I would like to thank. My formulas are derived based upon an underlying principle as described in my previous FQXi articles.

    You say: „You use logarithms based upon base 2".

    But you know FQXi contest It From Bit or Bit From It, was logarithms based upon base 2. So, the importance of base 2 of logarithm is well known.

    You are right cycle is interval of 2*pi, but I defined „Cycle" with capital C and there are lot of cysles in between. cy have to be read together as an abbreviation for „Cycle".

    More obvious is the term Proton ratio = mp/mz. But I have used Proton shift because it simpler for computation, which is often done in physics.

    The reference value is nonexpandin point at z as Bošković elaborate.

    The magnetic field and second and third generation of matter I neglect becouse they are of smal influence. But they also, can be determined with this Theory.

    To explain, Shift is term by definition. For instance then: Universe shift=z, Electron shift=-8.9, so it is depending of the mass of any structure. Relations between the whole and the parts are what produces all, including proton shift and magnetic fild.

    You say: BTW, you cannot have data that is more accurate than CODATA data.

    Mathematician Hugh Matlock, FQXi the 2013 contest, proved to be. Read his comments at: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1847. Also, you can see in my articles: http://vixra.org/author/branko_zivlak, Universal Gravitational Constant Via Rydberg Constant and Universal Gravitational Constant Via Proton.

    Just think about this: Did anyone understand Newton, Bošković and Einstein after a few readings?

    I even say that nobody, not even after 100 years did not understand Einstein. Many pretend to understand it because it is fashionable?

    It is important that they have the results. There are misinterpretations especially Einstein. But he is not guilty; he was not understood properly by others.

    For your open mind and your formulas (except proton diameter) I rate you 9.

    Where did you use value of exp(pi), for the ratio between the mass of the proton and the mass of the electron.

    Regards,

    Branko

      Branko,

      I use the value exp(pi) in one of my references wher I explore the ration Mp/Me. At the time I wrote the reference, I had not yet developed the 5-D model. If I were to do so now, the ratio would be presented as the ratio of two 5-D wave-functions with the proton wave-function shifted by a value of pi in each dimension.

      Clearly, there is similarity between what you are thinking and what I am thinking.

      Many thanks for the rating. I have also rated you with a medium to high value.

      Best regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

      7 days later

      Hi Branko, I get Eq.(17) = 0.000000574908201 using the CODATA values in your paper. This not a tricky calculation, so I wonder how you get 10^{-14} which is 7 orders of magnitude smaller. Maybe you are reporting the squared error? Considering that G or any physical constant is not that well determined, it seems unreasonable to claim such accuracy. Having said that, your hypothesis is supported to the extent allowed by the CODATA values.

      I feel uneasy with the idea that physical constants are a consequence of mathematics, or that mathematics is a consequence of physics. It takes the mathematical universe concept too far in my opinion, but the possibility is interesting and should not be dismissed because of intuitive considerations. Your essay certainly fuels the imagination. - cw

      Hi Colin,

      Thank you for your careful reading my essay. Of course, any equation containing G will have a number of uncertainties of G, if used CODATA value.

      In applications of my Theory, all formulas are in accordance with CODATA, with all significant CODATA digits. You can see in my papers that I check my relations through the CODATA history, with a great help of Hugh Matlock. For G see: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/5176. Thus, checking any theory is limited with a value of most accurately measured physical constant. It is currently the Rydberg constant. My Theory has passed the test with Rydberg constant. Someone may say, "OK, Eq. (17) is exact but some of the 4 physical constants do not represent what is claimed. For example: mp mass is not a proton, that is the mass between the proton and a neutron. "

      Then him, need to find what it represents.

      I'm not disappointed that my Theory is offline of the current mainstream scientists. It's enough for me that it is not contrary to Newton, Bošković, Planck and Einstein to some extent.

      As you can see, none of the professors in the contest read my essay. Still less would read if it there are a large number of pages. Perhaps the best strategy is to publish only the results in various fields of physics, as in:

      http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/6773.

      Now I apply Theory in cosmology.

      Regards,

      Branko

        It might have been better to assume Eq.17 = 0, then solve for G and see whether it fits within CODATA estimated error. I get G = 6.67383601e-11 which is about 0.000004e-11 off but well within the CODATA error, 0.0008e-11. In other words, Eq.17 produces the CODATA value for G with only 1/200 of the estimated error. This is similar to what you did using the Rydberg constant in the above-referenced 5176 paper.

        I think what you are on to is not merely numerical coincidence. There is something powerful in the way your techniques can be applied - for instance, a thermodynamic derivation of the CMB temperature which I saw previously. It reminds me of some of the surprising results of dimensional analysis. The exponential basis, which allows for symmetry between the large and the small, seems to be essential. - cw

        Hi Colin,

        Yes, I wrote Eq.17 = 0. Also I show that it is exact. But, if we use CODATA, error is e-7. As you show, if we relate to Rydberg constant, error is e-11. But I iven got error e-14 applaing one statistical trick. This is not numerical coincidence There are too many successful applications, it would be a coincidence. Secondly, it is obtained in a rational way. Third, does not require the introduction of unnecessary assumptions such as: dark matter, supersymmetry, the expansion of the universe, a singularity ... - zb

        Hi Branko,

        Thank you for pointing me towards your essay. I enjoyed reading it. But I wonder if there is something still missing from Eq. 17? The units in your log function include G, which has units in kg. But this doesn't cancel out elsewhere. I would think when comparing it to the mathematical constants that it has to end up being dimensionless.

        Nevertheless, you're likely on the right path. The mathematical constants are involved in the physical fundamental constants. I know you already reviewed our paper on this site due to your comments - thank you very much. Separate to this contest, I did some work on the fundamental constants to relate them to new wave constants. You might have interest in this work: Fundamental Physical Constants.

        Good luck in the contest!

        Jeff

          Hi Yeff,

          It cancel:

          [c^4*l^2/G^2*m^2]=[m^4*s^-4*m^2/kg^-2*m^6*s^-4*kg^2]=[m^6*s^-4/m^6*s^-4]=dimensionless

          Regards,

          Branko

          Dear Branko,

          I read with great interest your essay, only I am a sort of "blind" for formula's.

          Your conclusion however is cristal clear to me.

          Our relity is in my perception analogue (idea) and not granular, but thsi doesn't mean that an "idea" cannot have constituent "parts". Everything we think about is an aglomeration of parts leading to an answer. It is only "time" that is the reason of "experiece". The "field" unifying the parts can be consciousness. Wihout consciousness information is just chaos.

          best regards

          Wilhelmus

          Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

          There is no need to elaborate on the subject, analog or granular reality. Max Plank solved that.

          Regards,

          Branko

          Hello Mr Zivlak,

          A very intersting general analyse.the whole and its parts indeed ,this potential and this kinetic corrélations.The constants are fascinatings.

          god luck,all the best

          Hello Mr Dufourny,

          Thanks, but no correlation in the essay. Everything is deterministic.

          Please read the comments of Colin Walker.

          Regards,

          Branko

            • [deleted]

            • Post #26

            Thanks Mr Zivlak,I am understanding indeed.The determinism is important about the causalities,that permits to predict in function of past analyses and causalities indeed on this time line.The prédictions, so if all is deterministic respecting the postulates,are determinsitic in logic.The universe follows this deterministic rationality.

            Best

            Dear Mr. Branko L Zivlak

            I read your essay with pleasure, I found many interesting things. I thought over similar ideas in my work Femtotechnologies. step i atom hydrogen. http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0014v1.pdf

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264346914_FEMTOTEHNOLOGII_PERVYJ_SAG_-_ATOM_VODORODA

            Thank you for comment of my essay. Indeed, you are right. Formula (1) has a typo - sure, mass should be in numerator. Then the equation (7) is valid for a system of planet.

            Regards,

            Alexander Ilyanok

            Dear Mr. Ilyanok

            Thank you for comment of my essay. I have looked at your viXra paper. I think, there are not similar ideas with my essay.

            Regards,

            Branko

            7 days later

            Dear Branko

            You have got a lot of interesting relations between mathematical and fundamental physical constants. I am going on the some opposite ways, since I am trying in my works to get such relations issuing from conceptual ideas. However, your approach can be very useful sometime. I mean we can to find the desirable cause - conceptual interpretations by studying the discovered quantitative links between experimentally established constants. This happen with me, as example, when I have thinking why it must be: m(p)/m(e) =.. 6p^5 = 1836,...?

            This pushing us to think that there must be 1) some form factor, or symmetry given by 6. There must be also 2) some geometric factor that gives number p ....etc. So, on this way we can get to the structure of proton etc that are presented in my papers.

            Thus, your work is possible to evaluate as significantly only!

            I hope my papers may be interesting for you also (see in refs).

            Best wishes

            Dear Mr. Kirakosyan

            You say: I am going on the some opposite ways... You're wrong. I also try in my work to get such relations issuing from conceptual ideas. Maybe I was not clear with words, or you need to read my previous works. There is nothing outside the Whole and parts make up a whole, which is a concept in the title of the essay. I cannot imagine better concept.

            Your m (p) / m (e) is not a good idea because it can be reduced to the problem to solve alpha and alpha is the most difficult task

            (see http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/6772).

            1) There are number 6 in my formula (17). You can also see 6 in exponent of formula (9) at article: http://vixra.org/abs/1312.0141

            2) Cycle=exp(2pi) and cycle=2pi going to the proton in the formula (17). Note that first cycle is with capital C.

            Regarding, the Higgs Boson (your essay). The problem is general, since particle does not lead to a solution. Towards solution are words of RuÄ'er BoÅ¡ković:

            "Prima elementa materiae mihi sunt puncta prorsus indivisibilia, & inextensa, ... "

            Best regards,

            Branko