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