# Paul Hardaker

I**nstitute of Physics**

London, United Kingdom

Dear Paul:

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.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

New Orleans: 2009-2017 Austin, Texas: 2017-

First email: Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 10:44 AM

Reference: http://www.iop.org/news/12/may/page_55333.html

Dear Prof. Dr. Hardaker:

Have we overlooked the most simple constructions in science? And, do these simple constructions open a framework for a new set of questions about our old unanswered questions?

In December 2011 I was helping a high school teacher, part of our extended family, to engage his students in base-2 exponential notation applied to the smallest and largest known measurements within our physical world. We started with the Planck :Length and went out to the Observable Universe. Both measurements are well-known but base-2 notation had not been applied to that range. We discovered 202.34 notations (doublings, layers or steps) by simply multiplying the Planck Length by 2 and then multiplying each result by 2 until we reached the largest measurement.

It is a different kind of ordering system than base-10 because of its granularity and parallel construct to many processes in chemistry and biology.

Is it useful? Should it be encouraged? If you would like to take a look at some of the discussions around it, some of our work is posted here:

Reference page: https://81018.com/concepts-parameters/

First on the web here: http://bigboardlittleuniverse.wordpress.com/

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce