Third email: 23 July 2020 at 5:25 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Nancy Cartwright:
It would seem that three major errors are holding us all back. A few months ago, I addressed all three with a rather broad brush: “”We reach for the stars, but we’re conceptually blocked by Aristotle, Newton & Hawking!
Aristotle’s mistake was basic geometry and in 2012 mathematicians, Jeffrey Lagarias and Chuanming Zong, deftly analyzed Aristotle’s error which was not caught for over 1800 years. In 2015 they were singled out for recognition for their work by the AMS and granted the Levi L. Conant Prize.
That 7.35+ degree gap has not been studied by the scholars. Even today, it is little known or discussed. I believe it is the beginning of quantum fluctuations. Of course, that would be huge.
Newton’s absolute space and time has been the subject of debate for centuries. The Planck Length/Planck Time numbers confirm the ratio relation; it’s within .0001% of the NIST/SI 2019 value for the speed of light in a vacuum. That’s huge. Time is indeed discrete and in a necessary relation to Planck Length, light, and infinity.
I have started a new homepage on these issues — https://81018.com/conference/ — and your work is currently very much a part of the process of bringing that three-part,
dynamic homepage to fruition.
Again I thank you for your response back in 2017.
Second email: 18 January 2020 at 18:00
Dear Prof. Dr. Nancy Cartwright:
Congratulations on a most remarkable career, a lovely family,
and a vibrant emeritus period.
You are uniquely qualified to help put a stop to what has become
an eight year study of a very idiosyncratic development.
Perhaps Max Planck was wrong, but I doubt it.
Perhaps Euler and base-2 exponentiation are wrong…
that’s dubious at best.
Could simple mathematical logic falter? Rather unlikely.
Then, how is it that such a simple concept as doubling the Planck base units,
over and over again, 202 times to the current age and size of the universe
creates such a novel and helpful plenum? https://81018.com/stem/
The numbers: https://81018.com/chart/
The current struggle to understand: https://81018.com/arxiv
Would you have any advice for me?
First email: Monday, 13 February 2017
RE: Thank you for your scholarship about scientific models
Dear Prof. Dr. Nancy Cartwright,
Congratulations on a most distinguished career and for your journey into understanding the purpose of scientific models.
Our high school geometry class got carried away with base-2 notation from the Planck scale to the age of the universe; we found just over 200 notations. We first considered it to be a good STEM tool but then that model continued speaking to us:
We’ve asked scholars around the world, “Does this simple construct of the universe have value beyond its simple STEM qualities?” Of course, it is nonsense to many. So many scholars are so sure they are right and all others are wrong, we readily agree with Kermit, “It is not easy being green.”
Science orients us to the universe, our world and ourselves. Most do not argue with it and most do not argue with big bang cosmology or even consider its solipsistic nihilism.
Now, our nascent model defines the epochs of big bang cosmology better than the big bang theory. Ours is more simple. It has real numbers. It’s 100% predictive. And, it uses a natural inflation and actually works without that bang!
Of course, re-conceptualizing space and time is a bit of a hard sell. But, that’s OK; I am not afraid to sell.
Classical mechanics is one system, quantum mechanics yet another. In this nascent model, reaching toward wholeness, our best possible working analogue is a superconducting state where space and time and light might be described as being at a higher level of synchronicity. Someday I may know what they means! https://81018.com/c
Thanks again for being an authentic scholar!