**Christopher J. Conselice**

Centre for Astronomy & Particle Physics, University Park

Nottingham UK

**ArXiv** (329): https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5641

→ This search of articles renders 411 documents**Homepage**s: Office Webpage**Inspire HEP****Twitter**: https://twitter.com/conselice**Wikipedia**

**YouTube**

**Please note**: The joint announcement, Thursday, October 13, 2016, between NASA (Washington, DC), the European Space Agency (ESA-Paris) and the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS-London)

**References within this website (most recent first):**

September 2020: https://81018.com/continuity/#Chris

May 2020: https://81018.com/alternative/#Intro

December 2017: https://81018.com/everybody/

Introductory and primary article, November 2016: https://81018.com/galaxies/

Thursday, September 17, 2020: Heads Up

Hi Chris,

The next top posting on our site will reference and again link to your work. That URL on our site is: https://81018.com/continuity/#Chris This is what I said:

Yes, if time is discrete, quantized, and derivative, how do we deal with it?What if…

For example. If time is continuously discrete, how would it affect the work of all the galaxy counters? Remember back in 2016 when there were joint announcements about trillions of galaxies? A brilliant, young-and-spirited scientist from the Centre for Astronomy & Particle Physics of Nottingham in England, Chris Conselice, was leading that charge.Hardly a trivial question, I did my own calculations. If we redefine time, it will be fun to re-open questions about our current methods to count galaxies. -BEC

Occasionally reviewing our first principles is key. Here are a few of my rather unique points of view: https://81018.com/claims-2020/

Best wishes always,

Bruce

Third email: 23 June 2020 — on simple logic

Hi Chris:

I just came on this discussion and thought you would find it as interesting as I do.

##### -Bruce

** **

**Reference in Reddit**:

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/ddaej2/there_are_more_planets_in_the_universe_than/

Second email: Tuesday, 19 November 2019 @ 12:30 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Christopher Conselice:

How time flies… it has been three years since I interrupted your day with my idiosyncratic construct. I hope you don’t mind another very brief intercession regarding your 2T galaxy number. You may remember that you motivated me to attempt to calculate the 2T using a base-2 expansion, and that I got quite close. You may also remember my reluctance to embrace the *infinitely hot* and the work of Stephen Hawking and his entourage. I was nobody from no place special with no reputation to build or destroy!

So, I have another peculiar idea to pass by you, recognizing as best I can that your work is designed around the pioneering use of “…the fact that the speed of light is constant to determine how galaxy evolution has occurred.”

Remember my chart of 202 notations using base-2 from the Planck units? Simple math, simple logic, and simple people (*moi*). Also, you might remember that the work has a modest history from within a high school math class. I have slowly pushed at it to see where the logic and mathematics fail us. In writing to a friend about this month’s homepage about Newton’s absolute space-and-time, I said,

*“I believe that most of the confusion within astrophysics today is our understanding of space and time. Those 202 notations are not recognized or understood. People do not know from which notation they are measuring values. Perhaps there is a way to help them discern it, by giving them the speed of light at each notation perhaps within a femtometer so they might possibly attempt to separate the redshift more accurately by gauging it against each particular notation’s speed of light (given that most notations have unique light signatures — line 10 in the chart. Remember at the one second mark between notations 143 and 144, the speed of light was mathematically confirmed. To the best our knowledge, this was the first time the speed of light was ‘uncovered’ mathematically. Then, we found that every notation, of course, approximated the speed of light.”*

Any thoughts or is it just more idiosyncratic nonsense!?! Thanks.

-Bruce

PS. By the way, you may have found my earlier writing to you on the web:

https://81018.com/2016/11/08/conselice/At this stage in my life, I have to try to keep track of it all and this is one way to do it.

First email: Saturday, November 5, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Chris Conselice:

That’s a dramatic announcement. Yet, your impressive body of work posted within ArXiv reminds me of Dolly Parton’s comment, “It took me 20 years to become an overnight success.”

You certainly are the expert, yet still don’t you think somewhere in your deep intuition that two trillion galaxies is a bit much for a big bang? If the universe is just a mere 435 quadrillion seconds old (13.8 billion years), wouldn’t that place enormous pressure on the big bang, Λ-Cold Dark Matter cosmology, and galaxy formation-and-evolution in general?

Isn’t there something that’s off? But, what?

1. The age of the universe seems sacrosanct.

2. Perhaps we are counting from the wrong baseline assumptions about space and time. Perhaps Leibniz was right after all. But, that just opens the exploration and discounts nothing.

3. Might this new 2T figure imply exponentiation as the starting point? Could this exponentiation be a basis for natural inflation and a new logic to give us those two trillion galaxies? Exponentiation from the singularity of the Planck base units …right from the start could change everything. Crazy? Maybe so. Yet, I would love to hear from you.

Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

**NOTE**: Because new galaxies are lower-mass systems, most big bang scientists believe there is no reason to change our cosmology. Nevertheless, out of naivete, in a posting for November 7, 2016, I challenged the mathematics.

Monday, November 7, 2016

Chris –

Thank you. Yes, “Thank you, thank you.”

I could easily make a bigger fool of myself than I already do.

Let me noodle your deeply informed insights.

Of course, I was hoping you would have said

something like, “Let’s talk. You may have a point!”

I am just an idiosyncratic one.

The complexity, incompleteness, and theatrical compression of the big bang is one group that raises doubt, the other is the way base-2 exponential notation from “the Plancks” to the age of the universe mimics, or perhaps simulates, the big bang *without a bang*. It also uses a very ordinary natural inflation. A bit boring by contrast, but Wheeler and Feynman drilled simplicity into us, didn’t they?

-Bruce