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

    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

      Dear Branko

      I posted on my forum a partial reply under your very interesting comments.

      As soon as I finish the lecture of your essay, I will answer your questions.

      Best regards

      Peter

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

      This is a good message.

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

      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