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

Dear Mr. Gibbs

This is a google translation.

When I was a student I wrote a paper on the topic Classification meteorology, among the sciences. But meteorology did not exist among the sciences when my now deceased professor of meteorology (mentioned in the essay) was born 115 years ago. I want to say: the classification of sciences is human invention. Also, to make things easier for ourselves we invent dimensions, shape ... We also invent God. But, discovered the mathematical constant e, 2pi ... and in my essay exp(2pi), formula (17), do not care about our classifications. They are everywhere. They are just doing their mathematical work. Then, if you say that is all determined by mathematics, I remind you, pi is a transcendent number. Thus, the irrationality of mathematical and physical constants makes indeterminism. Coincidentally I just read an interesting and important essay about that stuff (James R. Akerlund) here on the contest.

Best regards,

Branko

Dear Mr. Gibbs

I did not completly answered on your question at my forum.

How did you find the relationship between maths and physics in your essay?

This question can be answered in different ways.

Methodologically it is explained in my three FQXi essays.

Much more important means of explanation is through the process of scientific knowledge. But the process are invited to talk about only those who are well-known. Who cares except viXra how I came to the result. Once, maybe I write extensively about the process. Here I will try to put on a chronologically only the main points.

The relation between mathematics and physics has long been well known beyond formulas containing 2pi or e.

But it took me about 3 years to understand the importance of the combination of these two mathematical constants exp (2pi). I'm not even thinking about mathematics at the beginning. Mathematics is self-inflicted later.

First I asked for a solution on the Internet, concluded that it does not.

I chose what is unquestionable and essential. I rejected irrelevant. I found that 80% of essential are Planck formulas, then Newton, Kepler, mc ^ 2, deltaE = 0.

I realized that these formulas should be to put at the relationships on levels so that at each level are valued universal constants.

I realized that there must be unique level at which begins matter (substance);

In many ways I have tried to determine the proton shift. I realized that this is not a mathematical relationship than the relation (7) containing physical constants.

It has been shown that a unique level has a unique mathematically expressed trait.

I found other unique levels that have been shown to have a physical character, which is published in my articles.

I followed the literature and is often encountered confirmation of my results that I was encouraged. Last, confirmation is the simple equation (3). After examining the work of R. Boškovića I saw, he long ago realized the importance of non-extended points. Weinberg, for example, much later, did not know it, but he mentioned pion instead. To confirm: Mathematics in my work is the result, not the starting point. Eq. (3) and (7) are exact, by definition. Eq. (17) is confirmed by the results provided. It is interesting that before I got a heavier (7) than simpler (3). Proof of this is the vixra article "Universal Gravitational Constant Via Proton" which was published before I found out (3).

Best regards,

Branko

7 days later

Dear Branko,

Thank you for your post on my page.

As I have told you before, I completely agree with you that the whole and the parts are linked. But I also believe that you should try to simplify your formulae, at present they are quite confusing and I believe that a lot of your log2 and power of 2 are just cancelling out. Also, you seem to be giving a value to Mu that just makes all your results match exactly with existing constant.

In any case, carry on working on your theory, you are going in the right direction.

All the best,

Patrick

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for the suggestions. I think this is the simplest and most reasonable Theory with a mathematical background. Just look at Newton's Principia, R. Bošković Naturalis Theoria ... or Einstein's work, those are quite hard to read. As I wrote in the essay:

„Note that in this article we will not have the mass of the Universe, Mu, since we will only deal with relations and only the well-known values of masses will be used."

Thus, is not yours: "Also, you seem to be giving a value to Mu that just makes all your results match exactly with existing constant. Yust, read once more.

However, I will try to simplify it even more in the following article, and not to mention the mass and radius of the whole.

My log2 and power of 2 are essentially, not to cancel out (see Table at contest 2015).

Best regards,

Branko

6 days later

Hi BLZ

I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

4 days later

Hi Branko,

I find your approach interesting and has a mathematical-phenomenological approach.

You say:"The nature does not recognize our division into mathematics and physics. For the nature those two are the same, everything is the same."

I agree that there is a sub strata natural language behind and for all phenomena in nature.

See my essay : We are together, therefore I am" that explains how all is in the attributes of a Movement-Phenomenon in the ever continuous Present change.

With great exposure for us all.

Yehuda Atai

Dear Yehuda Atai

Thank you for your comment.

I also concluded on the basis of the relationship shown mathematically, as you:

„I noticed through my meditations that every phenomenon has an

end (finitude)."

Nothing is identical to it

„So, that every phenomenon, from a grain of sand to a human to a mosquito to a galaxy is a unique unity in multiplicity."

„As the movement ends, often before its conclusion, new movements occur to continue the phenomenon."

It would be good if my mathematical relationships essentially understood and applied to prove your views. In particular, questions about the inevitability of movement.

What do you think: Are the two protons identical?

Regards,

Branko

    Hi Branko,

    Thanks for your interesting contribution. Your essay brings much food for thought.

    I dispute this quote of yours from RuÄ'er BoÅ¡ković:

    "The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points, ... "

    I tend to agree with the indivisible character but disagree that they are non- extended. An accumulation of non-extended points cannot produce a whole that is extended. To my relief, I see that you have yourself noted that non-extended things cannot be said to exist. What does not exist cannot make or add up to what exists. This may apply to space as well. For example, a line will be made up of a series of extended points.

    The other area that you may want to rethink is the claim that non-extended things can have mass. This would make such objects have an infinite density! I doubt this can be possible.

    These are the only two contentious areas. I agree with most of what you wrote.

    All the best in the competition and I will be rating your essay right away,

    Akinbo

    Hi Akinbo

    If you carefully read, explanation for the non-extended is:

    The explanation is just like in the case of the barycenter in cosmology, where the collective mass of stars and planets moves as if the entire mass is in the barycenter, even though there does not have to be any real mass there.

    Or, you could say that the barycenter is extended to all the solar system. But it does not matter. Also, it does not matter that in the opinion of some authorities, Bosković is the father of modern science. All that matters is, are my equations, correct?

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

    Best regards,

    Branko

    11 days later

    Dear Branco,

    I have already read for a long time your essay. Your approach is very close to my understanding of the laws of nature, and some thoughts completely coincide with mine. Especially:

    "The quantum character of phenomena is connected to the relations between the whole and its parts."

    "Mass is piece of physical space which rotates has conserved energy of rotation."

    "The matter is in constant motion, which can be described by cycles of different magnitudes"

    Of course, I highly appreciate your paper.

    Besr regards and good luck,

    Vladimir

    Dear Branco,

    I am not a physicist (I was trained in mathematics), so some of your essay I can only attempt to get my head around. Based upon some other comments, you seem to be onto something.

    Like a couple other commentors, I am unsure how your essay relates to the main question. How do these equations imply intention for, say, humans?

    Putting that issue aside, I do not see how you have accounted fr error terms in your values and equations. Your value for 2(pi) is only an approximation to 11 decimals, while pi is a transcendental number, also called a non-terminating decimal value. A similar point can be made for your other constants, which use transcendental numbers pi and e. So your concept of accuracy needs to be bounded by error terms, which I do not see.

    Your quote by RuÄ'er BoÅ¡ković is an implicit agreement that this is only a mathematical model that uses non-realistic mathematical points. This also brings into question how close the model can come to the physical world. Related to this (and I think to Gary Simpson's comment), making the mathematical model work does not mean you have provided an underlying principle that gives useful knowledge about what is going on (in my terms, you have not provided enough conceptualization of the model beyond the mathematical aspects).

    There are some questions you might addresss that are connected to the essay topic: How can actions on the particle level cause human beings (at a very different physical scale) to build devices that then cause actions on the particle level? How can a reductionist model, that implies all actions stem from the smallest scales account for human intentional actions, at a very different and larger scale, that then impact and change what happens at the smallest scale? Example - how can actions at the particle scale cause human physicists to create experimental devices that cause all sorts of havoc back at the particle scale?

    To me, this is the crux of the dilema involved in the essay topic.

    From my perspective, mathematical tools that cross levels of scale are what is currently missing for the next level of physical models to be developed.

    Don

    Dear Mr. Palmer

    Thank you very much for your detailed and well-intentioned comment.

    You are right when you say: I am unsure how your essay relates to the main question. How do these equations imply intention for, say, humans?

    Maybe it's about topic, that universe has aims and intention to produce a proton, that is first step to everything else. Also theme requires math, which is in the essay.

    About error terms, you are right. In my previous articles I carefully counted uncertainty, but I noticed that in the competition it is not the custom. That is why, this time I reject. For example, uncertainties you can see here: Universal Gravitational Constant Via Rydberg Constant viXra:1311.0081

    Ili druge članke ovde: http://vixra.org/author/branko_zivlak

    About underlying principle: I can repeat everything discussed in my previous articles, referenced Much, Bošković, Newton and other giants of philosophy of nature. There are plenty of professional physicists who can explain how it is that their theories provide extraordinary paradox, but mine not. I confirm my theory by numerous of applications. The number of applications confirms the Newtonian law of gravity too, which many feel is an approximation. I'm sure, most eloquent essay written by an unknown author would not have forced physicists to read it. So, I prefer to use my time finding new applications of "The Theory of Unity between the Whole and its Parts".

    And, I admit that intentional human action is not the subject of my interest.

    Once again, thank you for your efforts, regarding my essay.

    Regards,

    Branko