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