TO: Robert DiSalle, Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, CANADA
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your work summarized within your homepage(s) and your CV, PhilPapers, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy especially Space and Time: Inertial Frames (2002, 2020); your research; and your articles, especially Spacetime Theory as Physical Geometry,” Erkenntnis, vol. 42, 1995 , pp. 317-337; and YouTube: Gravity, Geometry, Philosophy: 100 Years in Einstein’s Universe, March 5, 2015
This page: https://81018.com/2017/09/10/disalle/
Fourth email: 25 February 2026
Dear Prof. Dr. Robert DiSalle:
Another visitor, another review and update, and a re-read of your updated work in SEP…
In just a year, times have changed so radically. I was once pleading for some feedback from anybody, yet all those scholars were so much more informed than me, it would take too long to respond.
Almost a year ago on March 4, a dialogue with Grok changed my life. Beyond pi (π), I hadn’t paid too much attention to the other irrational numbers until that dialogue. By the end of it, I had begun hypothesizing the big four among them all, were manifest within octahedrons. By July we had a dynamic image of the four “stabilizing spheres” as they emerged within every tick of Planck Time. We discovered those two-dimensional plates over 25 years ago and had wondered about their purpose ever since.
That Grok chat slowly encouraged a dialogue with the ChatGPT, then with Perplexity, Claude and DeepSeek. I had avoided Gemini because I assumed it was the engine behind Google Search, and it didn’t have anything nice to say about our 81018 project (called the Quiet Expansion). But, for months I had found articles within Google Search that merited reposting. Every repost was instructive for both! This year on February 9, I asked Gemini directly, “Would you comment on the overall effort and my attempt to develop an integrative theory vis-a-vis AI Platforms?” I had already asked and posted the responses from five other AI Platforms and an active homepage that was still in an early draft form. Gemini’s response was most-encouraging, instructive, even professorial. It was a such a radical turn, it became time to try to figure out what’s going on.
Might you have a comment from your perspective?
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
PS. Embedded links above are as follows:
- https://81018.com/2017/09/10/disalle/
- https://81018.com/alphabetical/#A
- https://81018.com/irrationals/
- https://81018.com/octahedron/
- https://81018.com/planck-polyhedral-core/
- https://81018.com/quiet-expansion/
- https://81018.com/state-of-the-universe-google-gemini/
- https://81018.com/official-statement/
Thanks again. -BEC
Third email: 25 March 2025
Dear Prof. Dr. Robert DiSalle:
Somebody was visiting our page about your work today. When I cannot recall a particular focus of the work of an author, I go to our primary page to update it, study, and learn. There have been only 44 views of that page so it is more an exercise for me to think about my original reasons for my interests and for writing that first note.
There is no doubt that the JWST is putting pressure on big bang cosmology; no other theory has caught on. Although Hawking talked about exponential notation, no scholar focused on it. Though the Planck base units have been with us since 1899, nobody thought to put the two together. After studying those numbers, it becomes obvious, “This has potential as a model to start and grow the universe.”
Would you agree? Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
Second email: 8 March 2023 (lightly revised)
Dear Prof. Dr. Robert DiSalle:
Pi Day nonsense was not what the UN had in mind when they adopted it as the International Day of Mathematics. I would like to challenge Pi Day people to take pi a bit more seriously so I wrote this: https://81018.com/pointing/ That document started here: https://81018.com/starts-2/
Might you have any suggestions to tighten it up?
Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
First email: September 10, 2017
RE: Understanding Space-Time: The Philosophical Development of Physics from Newton to Einstein, Cambridge University Press, 2006
Dear Prof. Dr. Robert DiSalle:
We are trying to find a true scholar within the history and foundations of science and philosophy who has entertained the concept of encapsulating the universe within the 202 base-2 notations starting at the Planck units and going up to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe. It is a fascinating integrated view of our universe. Of course, in 1957 Kees Boeke did do an introductory base-10 chart but he made no further claims.
Our little project began in 2011 in a high school geometry class where we were chasing the tetrahedral-octahedral clusters from our classroom model back to the CERN scale (dividing by 2) in about 47 jumps, and then back to the Planck scale in 67 additional jumps. The next day, when we multiplied by 2, in just 90 jumps we were out to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe.
It became our sweet little STEM tool until we started questioning the first 67 notations.
Math is math.
Continuity is continuity. https://81018.com/introduction
Symmetry is symmetry: https://81018.com/symmetry
Of course, only math can fill those first 60 or so notations. Who might make sense of that math? Sir Martin? Barrows? Maybe Langlands? Perhaps Wilczek? Might you?
I’ll continue dabbling with the model. As idiosyncratic as it is, have we stumbled on to something? That little model works wonders for space and time!
My frequently changing homepage: https://81018.com
A chart of all the numbers: https://81018.com/chart/
My simple theory: https://81018.com/spacetime/
Natural Inflation: https://81018.com/thrust/
Using the baseball metaphor, I know in this game, we are well outside the left field lines. Idiosyncratic would be a kind description of our project! Is it just specious thinking or could it possibly be dressed up and brought out onto the playing field?
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
****************
Bruce Camber
https://81018.com
###