Email: January 1, 2017
It is coming up on four years now since our rather brief exchange
about the progress of science in light of our emerging model for an
integrated view of the universe from the Planck base units. We’ve
learned a little since that time:
1. Our base-2 model had not been engaged by academia; it was a new, albeit a very simple model and organizing principle to look at the universe.
2. Planck time charted well next to Planck Length (2014).
3. Planck Charge and Planck Mass also charted well (2015).
4. Our first horizontal chart showed how it mimicked the epochs of big bang
cosmology without the bang; it employed natural inflation (April 2016).
5. Now I would go so far as to suggest that this base-2 progression
is a simulation program or script for those epochs. (January 2017)
Yes, we’ve discovered that what we are doing is unprecedented;
Kees Boeke’s base-10 in 1957 is the closest to it. From the lack
of any specific criticism, I have in the past year begun to think
that sometimes science moves slowly, not because of an idea’s
quality and application, but because it embarrasses too many
people and institutions. Big bang cosmology grabbed center stage
in the late 1970’s and took the throne as the most reasonable
explanation for the first three minutes of creation.
In our model there are about 202 notations. We may be redoing
this model using the reduced Planck constant; it may soon be
just 200 notations. Our chart is here: https://81018.com/chart
Might you have some comments or encouragement? Even robust
criticism would be helpful. Thank you, Paul.
New Orleans: 2009-2017 Austin, Texas: 2017