CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.JUNE.4-5,.2020 PAGES: ASSUME|DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|KEYS|MAP| RELATIONS|TRANSFORMATION|UP
BY BRUCE E. CAMBER INITIATED, TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 – A WORKING DRAFT. THE PREQUEL.
Introduction. Three thought leaders of our common history were also leaders in their own day. They held their ground when challenged; and in their time and throughout all the years, their work has become sacrosanct. Yet, among the many concepts each introduced, I believe each held onto a key conceptual mistake that still tricks us even today.
As a people we long for heroes and leaders; and, these three were ready to accommodate. Headstrong geniuses of their time, once they got into the limelight, they did not easily share it. They weren’t about encouraging others to discover their own gifts. They were more about imparting their genius to their adoring publics.
But, all three were fundamentally wrong about a foundational concept. They’ve thrown off generations of scholars. They’ve held us all back; and now it’s time to correct their mistakes, forgive them, and get on a path to breakthrough to new levels of insight.
Aristotle (384–322 BC, Athens)1 was wrong about a most-basic geometric fact. He obviously did not have perfect tetrahedrons within his toolbox. If he did, he would have known that you cannot perfectly tile and tessellate the universe with just tetrahedrons. He thought it could be done.
There are obvious gaps. Using the very tightest configuration of just five tetrahedrons sharing a simple edge, a most fundamentally important geometric gap is created. Simple logic tells us that it is the first gap in physicality. Aristotle never saw this 7.35+ degree gap. To his dying day, he promulgated an error as a truth.
Aristotle held such stature that this error was repeated by scholars for over 1800 years. Even today, not many people know about the gap. That should change. Our children should see it and begin to appreciate it profoundly.
What is it? I believe this simple gap is the beginning of the geometry of quantum fluctuations. That’s huge, but there is so much more. First, we know this, it is necessarily created by just five tetrahedrons. It just so happens those five tetrahedrons also outline a face of the dodecahedron and define the primary faces of the icosahedron and the Pentakis dodecahedron. Remember, it was Aristotle’s mentor, Plato, who gave us these five basic solids — the tetrahedron, hexahedron (aka cube), octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron.
That gap has everything to do with basic structure. It just may also have everything to do with creativity, individuality, consciousness…
Enter Jeffrey C. Lagarias & Chuanming Zong. In 2012 they wrote a most-definitive article about the gap. These two mathematicians provide the background and an introduction to those people in the 1400s who observed and noted Aristotle’s mistake. Drawing from more recent research by D. J. Struik, they cite Johannes Müller von Königsberg (aka Regiomontanus, 1436–1476) as the first to recognize the error, but it was first documented by Paulus van Middelburg (1445–1534), a professor of astrology in Padua. Even though that error had finally been observed and analyzed, people focused on the fact that it was an 1800-year mistake. They also focused on the concepts within cubic-close packing of tetrahedrons. Throughout the years Kepler, Minkowski, Hilbert, and Hales — just to name a few — contributed insights to analyze technical aspects regarding packing densities. In 2015 Lagarias and Zong were recognized for their work. That is all very interesting, however, we are still looking for the scholars who have asked and answered the question, “What is the net-net effect of that natural gap on our understanding of ourselves and our universe?”
Such a question should never be ignored, so let’s speculate a little.
Projections about the meaning of it all. We turn to our outline of the universe — the 202-base-2 notations from the Planck scale to this current time. Yet, we specially consider the uniqueness of the first 67 infinitesimal notations which are below the thresholds of easy measurement and observation. Here is a new field for explorations.
Infinite to finite. Within this model there is a thrust created, a finite-infinite bridge best characterized by functions of continuity, symmetry, and harmony, three facets of the sphere. Here the face of the infinite is within the finite. Simple perfections, here everything fits; and, it is all as simple as possible, but it becomes complex rather quickly.
What works survives. Every possible geometric combination that works provides form, function, structure, and then substance, relations and networks of relations. What works best, survives. The universe, the penultimate opportunist, is creating something big. It requires solid foundations. My guess is that somewhere around Notation-50, our universe begins to experiment with those five tetrahedrons with its built-in gap. Out of an abundance of shapes and configurations, the five tetrahedral structure is surrounded by perfectly manifesting forms and structures. And, then within a moment, that gap comes alive. Perhaps as early as Notation-50, the gap becomes a structural system and becomes a systemic fluctuation. Just a guess, the first expression of these systemic fluctuations just might be considered a primitive consciousness. By Notation-67, when it can be measured and “observed”, it will be defined as a quantum fluctuation.
Systemic fluctuations. Here we could postulate the beginning of identity, individuality, creativity, undecidability and unpredictability. Here may well be a transmogrification from the perfect to the imperfect and indeterminant. Here may well be the birth of life as we experience it firsthand. The perfect is still there, yet it is now beginning to be masked with color charge, flavors, sounds, and an assortment of other patinas.
A simple mistake by a legendary man has been hiding one of the most substantial mysteries of our time. It is time to absorb it and begin to absorb the new realities that it has been hiding.
We’ll always have a lot to learn.
Issac Newton (1642 – 1726, Cambridge, England)2 was wrong about a philosophical orientation adopted by the world as its commonsense perception of space and time yet that opinion does not integrate with tested formulas by Max Planck and Albert Einstein. Newton proclaimed that space and time are absolute, the very fabric of our essential reality.
It certainly feels true. When you look up into the clear night sky, it goes on forever. Doesn’t it? And, the answer is, “No, it only does as far as the current expansion.”
In 1687 Isaac Newton finished his landmark, three-volume book, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Better known as just the Principia, it helped to firm up the foundations for what we now know as the scientific method. Though glimpsed by science and mathematics (1) dating back to Babylonian astronomy (c. 1830 BCE) and the Egyptian medical schools (c. 1600 BCE), and (2) seriously enhanced by Aristotle and the logic within his treatise, The Organon, and then (3) energized with the work of Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo, one can say with some confidence that science as we know it today consistently grew out of Newton’s Principia.
Yet, with this landmark writing came his most important contribution to the disinformation of the world’s culture: absolute space and time. These absolutes will not begin to recede as a footnote in our intellectual history until a better orientation is adopted by most people. That is a problem because, to date, alternatives have been non-intuitive. Leibniz came close in 1716 within his indirect dialogues with Newton through Samuel Clarke; space and time are relational, derivative and finite. So now, we ask, “If it is not the container for all that is, what is?”
For many that question is about one’s belief in God.
We do not engage in “God Talk” on this website. One’s personal belief systems are largely a factor of family systems. Our attention is focused on universal systems and their constants.
Enter Max Ernst Ludwig Planck (1858 – 1947, Kiel, Berlin)3 In 1899 Max Planck developed the equations to render base unit numbers of length, time, and mass that were defined by universal physical constants. Although largely ignored throughout his lifetime, this may well be his most important work. The first consistent analysis of that work began in 2001 within Physics Today by Frank Wilczek.
Titled, Climbing Mt. Planck I, II, and III, a key calculation was overlooked.
Too simple for most, Planck had tied Planck Length and Planck Time together: Planck Time is equal to Planck Length divided by the speed of light. Of course, his little formula for Planck Time, can readily be re-written; the speed of light is equal to Planck Length divided by Planck Time.
That formula works! It worked in 1899. Using Planck’s numbers, the value is 299,792,422 meters per second. Max Planck had defined the speed of light using the mathematics of his equations a full 73 years before the National Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST) accepted a slightly closer estimate, 299,792,456.2 meters per second defined in 1972 by K.M. Evenson and his group within the National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado.
Planck’s numbers are real; they work with real laboratory measurements. To date, the academy virtually ignores them. Applying base-2 creates a natural progression of those numbers and the first 67 notations have only been marginally explored. Here is an even more logical way to study the earliest universe where space and time are clearly derivative. The question is asked, ” …derivative of what? …light?”
In 1905, Max Planck advised a young Albert Einstein as he began to tie mass and energy together; yet, at no time has the academy started e=mc2 at the very start, the first step of the Planck scale. What comes first? We’ve looked into the finite-infinite relation from the point of view of the sphere. Well removed from particles and waves, we began to see what just might be facets of light that could be more fundamental than space and time. Finally, Newton’s absolutes did not seem quite so absolute. A simple door with simple logic opens a new path to explore. Another one of those “hiding in plain sight” stories, we have been looking at this door since 1899.
We all still have a difficult time opening that door and walking down that extraordinary path on the other side. It follows continuity, symmetry and harmony and puts our unique time within this dimensionality in a whole new light.
Stephen William Hawking (1942-2018, Oxford, Cambridge)4 captured the world’s imagination. He was a superstar. Everybody knew his name. In 1973 a young Stephen Hawking and George F.R. Ellis co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time at the University of Cambridge in England. Yes, although looking at the large-scale structure, Hawking and Ellis made a mistake at the get-go:
They missed the real foundations. They missed the core structures. They missed all the really cool stuff from 10-13 cm down to and including the Planck Length at 10-33 cm. Within our base-2 outline of the universe, that is from Notations 73-to-75 down to Notation-1.
By 1980 the big bang theory was clearly on the ascendancy. By 1988 with the publication of his book, A Brief History Of Time, especially with its rapid rise to multi-millions of books sold, Hawking was also on the ascendancy as the primary spokesperson for big bang cosmology. In 2016, he rhetorically asked his basic question:
“Where did the universe come from?” (our emphases) He replies, “The answer, as most people can tell you, is the big bang. Everything in existence, expanding exponentially in every direction, from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point, creating a cosmos filled with energy and matter. But what does that really mean and where did it all begin?”
(from the PBS-TV series, Genius, May 2016)
When it comes to theories and mathematics, simple is better than complex.
For most of Hawking’s life, Max Planck’s numbers were considered by the leading scholars of this world to be a curiosity. Dirac had his very-large numbers. Planck had his very-small numbers. Dirac’s were too big to matter and Planck’s were too small to be significant. Again, it wasn’t until 2001 that Wilczek introduced the world to the meaning and value of Planck’s numbers. Slowly, the academy began to test those waters; yet, it was much too late for Hawking to enter. His 1973 co-author, G.F.R. Ellis, on the other hand, was open to explore the failures and deeper problems within the concept of an unfathomably hot beginning.
It doesn’t work. But now, it’s a conundrum. The big bang theory has been backed up with the humor of a twelve-year television series (2007-to-2019) that is now in endless re-runs. But, ever so much more daunting is the mythopoetics of Hawking’s life.
Diffusing the big bang will not be easy, but diffuse it we must.
The logic and simplicity of the quiet expansion from the Planck units to the current expansion arguably seems to have the most simple mathematics of any construct of the universe offered to date. It has a natural inflation. It starts superconductingly cold and naturally heats up and becomes superconductingly hot just in time to absorb the epochs of big bang cosmology.
The problem with our so-called Quiet Expansion is that its concept of space-and-time is non-intuitive. There is some light on this path. Others have been talking about the Now as well.
The Now. In this model, there is no past and no future, only the Now for the entire universe. All of the 202 time periods are still active and everything, everywhere for all time is related to everything, everywhere for all time. It is all constantly encoding and re-encoding the universe.
Every thought-word-and-deed affects the look and feel of the universe.
And, because there are multiple paths throughout the 202 active notations (categories, clusters, containers, domains, doublings, groups, jumps, layers, periods, sets, steps…), in this model, it is not only a small world after all, it is also a small and intimate universe.
Currently there is no way around all the naïveté within this three-point charge against three of the foremost scholars of our entire history. I expect each point will be hammered, yet it is only by such hammering can it all be shaped into real possibilities. Thank you. – BEC
Three sections follow: (1) Footnotes & Endnotes, (2) References, Reflections & Resources, and (3)_Miscellaneous Notes.
Please note: This page is a working document and editing continues on the Footnotes & Endnotes, as well as the References & Resources and the Miscellaneous Notes and will actively continue to be edited and updated for the next several months. Thank you. – BEC
“Be a free thinker and don’t accept everything you hear as truth.
Be critical and evaluate what you believe in.”
1a. Jeffrey C. Lagarias & Chuanming Zong, Mysteries in Packing Regular Tetrahedra (PDF), American Mathematical Society (AMS), December 2012 In 2015 Lagarias and Zong were awarded the 2015 AMS Levi L. Conant Prize at the Joint Mathematics Meetings. And, there is even more…
1b. Dirk J. Struik. If you do not have time to read the “Mysteries in Packing…”, you should know that Lagarias and Zong credit Struik, a Dutch-American and MIT mathematics professor, for reopening these discussions that broke the 1800+ year impasse. The primary reference: D. J. Struik, Het Probleem ‘De impletione loci’ (Dutch), Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, Series 2, 15 (1926), no. 3, 121–137
1c. The geometric gap of 7.3561031+ degrees was first encountered within our work in 2016 in the process of prioritizing numbers to answer the question, “What are the key numbers to create this universe?” This geometric gap was judged to be the fourth most important after (1) pi, (2) Kepler’s Conjecture, and (3) 0-and-1.
1d. Continuity, symmetry and harmony. Pi has to come into being in some manner. The spheres of the Kepler conjecture have to originate somehow. To answer the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” we assume that something is more fundamental than space and time, matter and energy. Here is our attempt to define the concepts that create a finite-infinite relation that gives rise to homogeneity and isotropy. Within this emerging model, the infinite is the qualitative; the finite is the quantitative. Instead of retiring the concept of infinity (Tegmark, 2012), in this model, it is the centerfold and but with very specific definitions.
1e. From systemic to quantum fluctuations. Because so many concepts are being introduced, these comments will become future postings and homepages within this site. In March 2020, I wrote up an overview of some of these concepts (PDF) to get some feedback from the FQXi people. Here are the key claims.
Recognizing how idiosyncratic it is to associate the geometric gap with fluctuations, it is certainly a greater stretch to differentiate types of fluctuations. Yet, that study has begun and eventually we’ll be showing a video of what we call “squishy geometries” and the rather unusual motions can be created by tetrahedrons.
Systemic fluctuations. Those two words in May 2020 only had 569 references within a Google search. These fluctuations, admittedly a guess, originate with the five tetrahedral structure fully engulfed by perfected systems. With the emergence of particle physics between Notation-64 to Notation-67, they become part of the look-and-feel that define all physical systems. It is a stretch, for sure, however, we will continue to pursue it further.
“No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.”
2a. Tested formulas by Max Planck and Albert Einstein defrock Newton’s absolute time and space pageantry. Follow all four values from Notation 1 to Notation 202, our universe is naturally exponential. Space and time are derivative and finite.
2b. Very fabric of our essential reality. A new aether (ether) emerges. Described often in these pages, the subject has initially addressed (2017) as the fabric of the universe.
2c. Of course, Aristotle’s influence on the way we think runs deep. Newton credits Aristotle’s work within his book, The Organon. Yet, we should ask which comes first, basic logic, or the continuity-symmetry-harmony, the heart of the structure of the universe.
2d. Leibniz challenged Newton in 1715 and 1716. In his lifetime, Leibniz advocated for a relational view of the universe and it is perhaps provides the best foundations for an alternative approach.
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“
3a. A key calculation has been overlooked. The math is simple. The results dramatic.
3b. Ken M. Evenson et al (1972), “Speed of Light from Direct Frequency and Wavelength Measurements of the Methane-Stabilized Laser“, Physical Review Letters, 29 (19): 1346–49. Bibcode: 1972 PhRvL..29.1346E, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.1346). Quantum Electronics Division, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80302)
3c. More fundamental than space and time. Simple logic redefines the finite-infinite relation and the nature of light, and the nature of space and time.
3d. Continuity, symmetry and harmony are three facets of both the finite and infinite. It is the baseline of this model of the universe. Here it seems all are universals that are, in the same instant, dimensionless, dimensionful, and dimensional.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
4a. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time is a classic; however, it is not easy reading because it is laden with formulas (PDF).
4b. A Brief History Of Time: Hawking reviews the history, but does not rule out absolute time. He is after all, the 17th Lucasian professor, following in the footsteps of Sir Isaac Newton, the second Lucasian professor. Although scholars from around the world were calling for a re-evaluation of its growing status, there was increasingly less room for discussion. Its devotees accepted it as fact, not theory, and Hawking championed that big bang right to his dying day. More…
4c. George F. R. Ellis, Hawking’s 1973 co-author, had begun to recognize the deeper problems with conclusions from those early years of explorations at University of Cambridge. In 2012 in his collaboration with Roy Maartens and Malcolm MacCallum, (Relativistic Cosmology [PDF], Cambridge University Press), the big bang model is clearly under close scrutiny and every assumption is on the table: inflation, singularities, the most-recent measurements of the Hubble spacecraft of the cosmic background radiation, fine-tuning…. he is open to explore virtually every issue; yet with close to 50 years of analysis, he can not be absurd to himself. In February 2020, with colleague, A.A. Coley, the topic is, Theoretical Cosmology (PDF), virtually all the same issues are reviewed.
I took the most comfort from an article in 2017, Physics on the Edge, where he names all the key players and essentially shows how confoundingly muddled it all is. The current academy of scholars do not have clear answers.
References, reflections & resources
Please note: The primary links into this section are from the Endnotes & Footnotes from where there is the word, More… Links back to that More… are only from the [Numbers] below.
 Aristotle. Our work began in a high school geometry class. We knew it required a tetrahedron and octahedron to tile and tessellate the universe. In 2011 we walked with Zeno deeper and deeper inside each object and learned a lot. You should know that our shapes were all perfectly made according to Plato’s specifications.
Yes, in 1998 we manufactured our own tetrahedrons and octahedrons!
It was hard to believe that neither Aristotle nor 1800 years of scholars (at least 90 generations) did not have their own perfect tetrahedrons in their toolbox. We wondered if geometry had slid from importance or was Aristotle beyond criticism?
The icosahedrons and Pentakis dodecahedrons use the five-tetrahedral configuration; they have gaps, and we dubbed it “squishy” or quantum geometry. By 2011, now with many years of visceral experience, and within our new chart of the infinitesimal scales, we thought that such a pervasive gap had to be significant.
We began thinking of quantum fluctuations and then systemic fluctuations.
[1a] Jeffrey C. Lagarias & Chuanming Zong. In 2011, just about the time we were beginning to explore the infinitesimal universe, Lagarias and Zong had begun writing the best little introduction that I’ve found to this geometric gap. It is a relatively short article (PDF) for the American Mathematical Society (AMS), December 2012. We appreciate that the AMS has made it readily available.
Also see: Lagarias, Clay Fellow Senior Talk, “Packing Space with Regular Tetrahedra“ and Chuanming Zong, Can You Pave the Plane Nicely with Identical Tiles, 2018
The people of China and the USA — not the governments, but the people — must find common ground. One would think that mathematics and the sciences would give us an abundance of places with which to build ties that are greater than politics. Articles like this encourage us. As important as their personal relation is, these two are also building relations between the University of Michigan and Tianjin Center for Applied Mathematics (TCAM). Zong was initially at Peking National University. Their work actually changes the quality of life for everyone and for everything within this universe.
So, it is incumbent on all of us to begin to understand this gap, the first in the universe. It just might teach us all to become more patient with each other, especially with our superficial historic differences.
[1b] Personal. For me, Aristotle was always secondary to Plato. I am still in my earliest stages of plowing beyond a perfunctory understanding of Aristotle. Just from this encounter, I am fascinated with him. It appears for some of the Aristotelian crowd, his understanding of the tetrahedron is a bit of an embarrassment. Substantial studies do not touch it. My interest was so piqued, I started simple — with the Wikipedia overview — and then went on to other authors who came up in specific searches. I empathize with the less well-known authors, people like Ric Machuga, a professor at a junior college (Butte College, Oroville, CA). His book, Life, the Universe, and Everything: An Aristotelian Philosophy for a Scientific Age, was published in 2011.
[1c] Zeno, Aristotle, Planck and Infinite Divisibility. I remember well the puzzled look of our students, when in 2011 I said, “Zeno has bumped into a limit called the Planck Length. We cannot divide-by-2 forever.” Planck gave the universe boundaries and logical conditions for those boundaries. Not entirely satisfied with that perception, a Russian by the name of Sergey Fedosin has taken another step: Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. I always immediately look to see what their starting points are. Within that document, they do not discuss the Planck base units and so they miss the possibility of defining the domain from the Planck units to the particle physics in a highly textured manner.
References, reflections & resources:
 Issac Newton did not have the advantage of Leonhard Euler‘s exponentiation. He created the concept after Newton had died. Of all possible manners of notations, base-2, is the most simple, yet it still lacks proper respect. The chessboard stories are told but under-appreciated.
The seemingly simple progression, 264 yields a large number, 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. If you were turn turn it into pennies, you could easily retire the world’s debt, all nations and all people… I tried to explain it to my sister-in-law.
2202 is another story. Notationally, 6.42775218×1060 is the raw number. Once there is an amount associated with it, like infinitesimal spheres, it begins to open the imagination.
Newton did not have Planck’s base units. He was arrogantly unsure of himself. This Lucasian Professor (#2) was confident, however, that space and time were absolute. It is profoundly part of our commonsense worldview. Unfortunately, however, it is wrong. Indeed, the approach of Gottfried Leibniz will render a much richer view of our universe.
There are two living Lucasian professors, Michael Green (#18), and Michael Cates (#19). I’ll keep trying to develop a working relation with them, yet prior history tells me that I am not sophisticated enough for these people. https://810 18.com/uni/ https://81018.com/lucasian/
References, reflections & resources:
 Max Ernst Ludwig Planck Within the complex of Max Planck institutes around the world, there have been several attempts to open discussions. In this section, we will look at some of those exchanges more closely.
References, reflections & resources:</strong
 Stephen Hawking: There are many articles about the problems within big bang cosmology. A few of these papers will be selected and analyzed in light of the 202 notations. Our first emails to Stephen Hawking referenced our very early attempts to interpret our chart of just Planck Length and Planck Time doublings.
• Mauricio Mondragon & Luis Lopeza,, Space and time as containers, Space divisibility, and unrepeatability of events, 2007, 2012
DIRK J. SRUIK: “Aristoteles weiß, daß der Raum durch kongruente Würfel voll ausgefüllt werden kann, behauptet aber weiter, daß das auch mit Tetraedern gelinge. Verf. verfolgt diese falsche Behauptung, die auch für die Lehre vom Vakuum eine gewisse Bedeutung hat, durch die Geschichte der Mathematik. Der erste, der die Unrichtigkeit des Satzes nachweist, ist Regiomontanus. Aber Ramus und Snellius folgen wieder dem Aristoteles. Erst mit dem 16. Jahrhundert tritt völlige Klarheit ein (Benedetti, Blancani, Broscius). (V 3.)“
TRANSLATION: “ARISTOTLE KNOWS THAT CONGRUENT CUBES CAN FILL THE SPACE COMPLETELY, BUT FURTHER CLAIMS THAT THIS CAN ALSO BE DONE WITH TETRAHEDRA. THE AUTHOR FOLLOWS THIS FALSE ASSERTION, WHICH ALSO HAS A CERTAIN MEANING FOR THE TEACHING OF VACUUM, THROUGH THE HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS. THE FIRST TO PROVE THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE SENTENCE IS REGIOMONTANUS. BUT RAMUS AND SNELLIUS FOLLOW ARISTOTLE AGAIN. IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE 16TH CENTURY THAT COMPLETE CLARITY APPEARED (BENEDETTI, BLANCANI, BROSCIUS). (V 3.)” DIRK J. SRUIK
“The basic idea is that quantum fluctuations of the inflaton field behave like one-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillators (with time-varying mass). Zero-point fluctuations of a quantum harmonic oscillator induce a non-zero variance of the oscillator amplitude, ⟨xˆ2⟩ = /2ω. Similarly, the inflaton zero-point fluctuations generate a non- zero variance ⟨δφ2⟩. The fluctuation modes (with co-moving wave number k) are stretched from their original small scale (assumed to be above the Planck scale) by the rapid accelerating expansion of the universe, until their wavelength ak−1 exceeds the Hubble scale (when they are assumed to become classical fluctuations).”
• W. Patrick Hooper et al., , 2018, Platonic solids and high genus covers of lattice surfaces
We will be proposing one that has been reached by a few well-grounded scientist/scholars. Unfortunately, it still feels a bit more like science fiction, so we’ll come back to it within our final overview and conclusions.
• Alvaro G. López, On an electrodynamic origin of quantum fluctuations, 2020
Nonlinear Dynamics, Chaos and Complex Systems Group, Departamento de Física, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Tulipán s/n, 28933 Móstoles, Madrid, Spain (Dated: January 31, 2020) Here, space and time appear quite derivative. It appears that he was not ready to challenge absolute space and time. He defines a relation that begins with the Planck units. When we apply base-2, we are looking at the natural unfolding. The two formulas mass-energy equivalence and length-time equivalence are bound by light and appear to be bound to each other.
• Wikipedia: A gauge theory is a type of field theory in which the Lagrangian does not change (is invariant) under local transformations from certain Lie groups. … If the symmetry group is non-commutative, then the gauge theory is referred to as non-abelian gauge theory, the usual example being the Yang–Mills theory.
This judgmental word is used because their well-known arrogance prevented many discussions.
Arrogance is a risk and pitfall of being human and holding on to a subject-object model of the universe. In the quiet expansion model, the fundamentally real, sometimes called the primary real, is the relation. Like space and time, the subject and object are derivative from the sum total of its relations. These relations are forever, but not so binding as to imprison one within a moment. When there is change, we will know that the progenitors of the concepts have also changed. Perhaps that is too far fetch for most. –BEC
Key Dates for Duped by Aristotle, Newton & Hawking!
This page was initiated on May 5, 2020
Posted online for collaborations: Tuesday, May 16, 2020
Homepage start: May 23, 2020 @ 11:11 PM
Last edit: Wednesday, June 3, 2020
This page is: https://81018.com/duped
Related pages: https://81018.com/redefining/
The Universe As An Intimate Place: https://81018.com/alternative/