Building one’s community is at best a labor of love, patience, and risk. Here is how I am currently going about it:
- Sent out a note one the October morning:
“Simple logic and simple math sometimes go well beyond commonsense.
“Could you take a moment to look at my LinkedIn posting from Sunday?
Where are we going wrong? If we are not wrong, there is a lot of work to do!
“The subject is cosmology’s big bang. Base-2 notation from the Planck Time to the Age of the Universe has just 200 notations, a natural inflation, that mimics the classically-defined epochs of the big bang, all without the bang. Logically, it also challenges our commonsense worldviews of space, time, and the finite-infinite definition.
“Can you help?
“Thank you. -Bruce – Email address – New Orleans”
2. Expectations: I am trying to find people who get it, say, “Amazing.” Then in some way say, “Let’s figure this out.”
I did an initial sort of people within my network and sent 28 notes to those people. Though randomly selected, they are prequalified because they’re within my LinkedIn contacts. The next sort is by interests, profession, and depth of knowledge which requires doing an analysis of articles, blogs, books, videos and the like.
The people whom I am trying to identify have thought about the big bang theory and have reservations about it; they have a community, they have expertise within the sciences, and they may have insights.
3. Communities of interest: Multiscale modelling, Natural Inflation, Scale of the Universe, base-2 exponentiation, bifurcation theory, cellular automaton, Langlands programs, automorphic forms, scientific dissidents… then, of course, there are the large groups, cosmology, ontology, and epistemology.
4. Is there a better way? Each posting on the web forces a certain clarity; that’s good. But at some time, either there has to be a major course correction based on the comments of readers, especially those who have been doing the scholarly work for years, or this discussion should break open to a much wider audience.