Third email: Sunday, December 29, 2019 @ Noon
Dear Prof. Dr. Ard Louis:
You are a real scholar and stand among the greats. To help me understand such scholarship, I have developed a summary page about your work here: https://81018.com/2017/01/05/louis/ (this page)
Then, there are rest of us who just might have an idea in our old age yet must beg the favor of a reply. As you can see, I have been asking for a modicum of advice for over eight years now, and receive very little. Of course, the greats have very little time, especially for those of us who are idiosyncratic. Notwithstanding, I would dearly like to know what my failures of simple logic and simple mathematics have been before I die.
Might you help me? Thank you.
Second email: Thursday, June 28, 2018, 10:24 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Ard Louis:
I have enjoyed your forthright defense of the faith. Potentially another dimension of the debate could be the natural inflation of the universe from the Planck base units using an application of base-2 exponentiation to encapsulate the universe within 202 notations: https://81018.com/emergence
Of course, your comments on this most idiosyncratic construct are most welcomed.
First email: Thursday, January 5, 2017, 4:16 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Ard A. Louis:
My brother-in-law introduced me to you through your interview with Eric Metaxas (who talks a lot to get to a question); and while listening to your interview, I went to your home page and to several of your ArXiv articles. You’ve done a lot of very good work in a very short time! Congratulations.
I have only one key question for you; and like Eric, I will probably take too much time to get to it.
In helping out on occasion at the family’s private Christian school in New Orleans (high school geometry class, December 2011), we were tiling and tessellating the universe within our studies of nested and combinatorial tetrahedrons and octahedrons.
Out of that work came a surprisingly simple model of the universe. We used base-2 exponentiation starting with the Planck base units and went out to the Age of the Universe, perhaps called, the Now. Of course, it is very similar to the base-10 work of Kees Boeke in 1957 in Holland.
That chart of our numbers was made horizontal in April 2016: https://81018.com/chart
The first 67 notations, we’ve dubbed the Planck scale and the small-scale universe. The next scale, notations 67 to 134, we considered the human scale. It begins at the CERN-scale with the Higgs, fermions, etc. and goes up to chemical scale (80-90) and into the biological scale (90-100) and then into things, people, and city-states. Then, from notations 134 to 201, we entered the large-scale universe. It all seemed like an excellent STEM tool, a secondary school program to encourage involvement within Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM).
But something unusual happened when we applied Planck Time to the chart in December 2014. We could easily follow the first second of the universe, up and between notation 143 and 144. And, then we began thinking about the big bang, natural inflation, and all kinds of topics well over our heads.
It seemed like our chart was simulating the big bang without a bang! Now, my writing is certainly not ArXiv quality.
Key Question: Do you think it could be worth the time to attempt to get a few of our papers into an ArXiv format or are they just too general and idiosyncratic?
PS. We have certainly enjoyed the work of Cambridge/Oxford colleague, Jonathan P. K. Doye, over the years.