Center for Perfection Studies • The Big Board–Little Universe Project • Everywhere • June 2017 •
Homepages: NASA Reports|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|Original
Potential answer: We are living the wrong models of who we are and why we are.
1. Solipsism versus Science, Constants, and Universals. Have you ever said, “It’s all about me.” The more we focus on our self, the more out of balance we become. Though objective reality should be questioned (quantum physics), subjective reality is a very weak foundation. To avoid falling into that solipsistic mirror, we need to focus on relations. Within our studies of an integrated universe views relations are the only real and dynamic ratios hold subjects and objects together.
2. Narcissism versus Eternal Beauty and Integrity. “My universe is better than yours.” Narcissus looks at his reflection and loves what he sees. He’s captured by himself and begins to depart from all other relations.
3. Nihilism versus Creativity and Optimism. “It’s all ending badly so eat drink and be merry.” When not captivated by the mirror, the easy conclusion is, there are no standards, there is no abiding structure, and soon we die.
4. Dystopianism versus Growing Understanding and Development of Universal Structure. “Get ready for war games at every level. Think Syria. Think ISIS.” The insidious nature of nihilism ultimately leads to total chaos.
Naïveté. Many of our readers know about our work, beginning in December 2011 from within our high school geometry classes. We had backed into a very simple, mathematical model of the universe; it is slowly being examined by scholars.
A Direct Challenge to the Big Bang Theory. Tetrahedrons and octahedrons can perfectly tile and tessellate the universe. They can perfectly fill each other just like Matryoshka dolls. Here we discover how the power of 2, or doublings, or base-2 exponentiation is pivotal in mathematics, geometry, physics, chemistry and biology. In the past 17 years, the Planck base units are now understood and affirmed. This model with just over 202 doublings runs from the first moment of creation at Notation #1 to the first second of creation between notations 143 and 144 and to the this present day, current hour, and this very second at the 202nd notation. Everything is necessarily related to everything. Here is the opposite of dystopia. Here every kind of relation with continuity-and-symmetry become the penultimate.
Although we have begun to interpret the numbers — it is not easy — there is a long way to go
This simple mathematical model is a scripting program that simulates the big bang, but, the starting point is the opposite of “infinitely dense” and “infinitely hot.” This model starts with the infinitesimal Planck Time and Planck Length as well as Planck Mass and Planck Charge. Each doubling of these four Planck units, notation after notation, defines all the phenomena of the big bang theory except there is no bang per se. It defines a natural inflation. It is 100% predictive. It outlines the cosmological epochs more pointedly than the big bang theory. It mimics cellular reproduction. It includes everything for all time and in all space. Simple, elegant, comprehensive, it is a basic mathematical platform that can readily incorporate and support all other mathematics.
But then, it does so much more. It opens up possibilities and probabilities. While still infinitesimal, it creates space for philosophies (even ethics), and the mind (even sleep). It gives homogeneity and isotropy a platform. It also gives dark matter and dark energy a foundation. And, most importantly, it redefines the infinite in ways that might open dialogues about universals and constants, the ultimate and eternal, first within the sciences, then between science and philosophy, then between science and religion, and maybe even between different religions.
Why didn’t the academics and scholars find this simple little model?
Planck Units: In the six years from conception to publishing, 1899-1905, Max Planck worked with five universal physical constants to define an essential reality and base platform for measurement. The result was four Planck base units: Planck Time, Planck Length, Planck Mass and Planck Charge that were “…properties of nature and not from any human construct.” Although engaged by many over time, the Planck numbers did not command basic respect across the entire scientific community. Not until 2001 when Frank Wilczek (MIT, Nobel laureate 2004) wrote a series of three articles for Physics Today, Scaling Mt. Planck, did I, II, III, these Planck units begin to move beyond numerology into wide-scale acceptability.
By that time, the big bang theory had gained the high ground. Nobody thought to follow simple nested or combinatorial geometries back to the Planck Length. Nobody thought to multiply the Planck units by 2. It took a huge amount of naïveté and almost no knowledge of cosmological models to bias one’s point of view. It also required attempt to discount our commonsense view promulgated by Isaac Newton that space and time are absolute and to begin to adopt a relational model as suggested in 1715 by Leibniz.
Today, there are three simultaneous research projects to define this model more completely:
• Measuring an Expanding Universe Using Planck Units (work in progress)
• The Thrust of the Universe: What is it? (work in progress)
• Visualizing the Universe (work in progress)
We invite your comments and questions about our simple, highly-integrated, mathematical model of the Universe.
Thank you. – Bruce Camber
Let’s talk and let’s get to work!
• Revisit. June 5, 2017, Burst the Big Bang Bubble
• Contact! June 2, 2017, Email to the Editors of scientific publications
• Contact! 1 June 2017: Email to Max Tegmark (MIT), re. the nature of infinity in light of his article, The Mathematical Universe
• Contact! 4 May 2017: Email to Brandon Brown, author, Planck: Driven by Vision, Broken by War
News / Research
• Open Letter to the editors of Science (magazine) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
• Simple View of the Universe
• An Integrated Universe View: What is your expertise? There are many blanks within many cells — over 2000 of them in the entire chart — so, we assume it will always be “under construction.”
Recent-and-related:
• Background: Do you have a Worldview? Could it be part of an integrated Universe View?
• NASA SpaceApp Challenge Reports (work in progress)
• Very Small-Scale Universe: What is hypostatic?
