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

      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

      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

      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

      Branko, a great idea: "We cannot see the world as whole. But we can see the relationship between the whole and the parts." I should add that part of space move relative to other parts and it form a whole world. Our world is endless due to the movement of its parts. We see the world turning to us for their past events and we cannot see the world as whole. I will give you a high ball, when i learn to do it accurately

      But here's the gravitational constant G is a coefficient which translates the inert mass expressed in kilograms in gravitational mass, expressed in M3/S2

      Boris Dizhechko

      Dear Boris Dizhechko,

      Your comment has been great. But when you say world I and many others believe the Earth (see my comment and response in Mr. Gibbs place). Universe is eternal and endless due to the movement of its parts. But in one point of time, the mass of universe and space are finite.

      I would be grateful if you would have found a mistake in my formulas or methodology.

      Best regards,

      Branko

        Dear Branko, for your formula, then this is your path and your choice where to begin your journey to reach your goal. I will not look for a fault with them, hoping that you're doing it right.

        My way defines a New Cartesian Physic, is based on the equivalence of space and matter. I am a materialist and so I say that space is matter. All visible body, the planets, the stars are benchmarks that indicate the movement of the space. Physical space that moves, should be distinguished from a fixed geometric space.

        The concept of moving space-matter helped me:

        To convert the uncertainty principle Heisenberg in the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;

        To reveal the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface space-matter;

        To formulate the law of gravitation Lorentz;

        Give the formula of the pressure of the Universe;

        To reveal the essence of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

        From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. If you wish to join it, it is often necessary to communicate with me.

        I wish you success!

        Boris Dizhechko

        в--ў

        Отправить перевод