# Who is the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)?

The insiders — editors, gatekeepers, and judges — within the AAAS have a major impact on the sciences. These folks are responsible for quality. There are so many marginal concepts and ideas within the sciences, these insiders keep the marginals from corrupting the core values of the scientific enterprise. It is most difficult to keep a balance and to know if and when creativity is being stifled.

## Editors of Science magazine

Three Twitter Links: (1) AAAS (2) Science  (3) News

`Most recent and fourth email: Monday, April 4, 2022 at 12:21 PM `

Dear most distinguished editors:

In 2011 our high school geometry class was following the simple logic of base-2 exponentiation. We had discovered an infinite regression, or at least what seemed like such by going inside the tetrahedron and octahedron. Within the tetrahedron, dividing each edge in half, then connecting the new vertices, there are four tetrahedrons, one in each corner and an octahedron in the middle. Inside the octahedron, dividing each edge in half and connecting those new vertices, there are six octahedrons, one in each corner, and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces.

How far within can we go? Where would Zeno stop? Where would Max Planck stop?

We had fun mapping the universe using base-2 notation. We were quite surprised to find there were less than 45 steps going deeper-within to the size of particle physics and just another 67 steps to get down to the Planck scale. The next day we started with the Planck Length, multiplied by two and in 112 doublings we were back in the classroom. In another 90 doublings we were out to the Observable Universe. It was too simple.

We didn’t know what we didn’t know. Are we doing something wrong? Where does our logic break down? We searched the web.

We found Kees Boeke’s base-10 work, but no base-2. We kept looking for almost a year and found bits and pieces, but no map of the universe using base-2 and its very special granularity. For the past ten years we continued poking at our map. We added Planck Time, then the other Planck base units and said, “Voila. A Base-2 Map of the Universe.” Totally predictive, it is 100% simple mathematics but it tells a radically different story about the universe. Starting with the Planck base units and all the constants that define each, this so-called singularity is more like an alphabet-and-number soup it has so many equations defining it. Naturally inflating, it seems to encapsulate all the appropriate epochs of the big bang without a bang.

It is all a bit much to swallow; it is altogether too simple; and hardly anybody has truly wrestled with it. We must be doing something wrong, but what? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. The first embedded link above — https://81018.com/stem/ — goes to a bit deeper look at our process. When we started, we thought it was the best possible STEM tool because it had encapsulated everything, everywhere, for all time. It became a STEM model for lifelong learning.
-BEC
****************
Bruce E. Camber
https://81018.com
https://81018.com/chart
https://81018.com/bec/

`Tweet on Thursday, April 20, 2017`

@NewsfromScience Largest-possible, dynamic continuity equation: Planck Time to Age of the Universe has 202+ notations http://81018/com/chart/

`Third Email: Thursday, 20 April 2017`

RE: We just received an email saying our manuscript was rejected!

Dear Alice:

Kind thanks for your quick response.
Quite obviously, we are in the wrong department.
Ours is a just a simple letter and rather simple-but-perplexing
questions for the editors, certainly not a manuscript for submission.
Might you redirect us to the appropriate person who handles letters
from 81 high school students and 18 sixth-grade savants (AP class)?
Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce

`Second Email on Wednesday, April 19, 2017`

Dear AAAS Science Editors,

Will there be any response to our letter below?
Thank you.

Sincerely,
Bruce

`First Email: Friday, March 31, 2017`

To the Editors of the journal, Science

Dear most-distinguished editors:

In 2011 our high school geometry class was following the simple logic of base-2 exponentiation. We had discovered an infinite regression, or at least what seemed like such, by going inside the tetrahedron and octahedron. Within the tetrahedron, dividing each edge in half, are four tetrahedrons and an octahedron. Inside the octahedron, dividing each edge in half and connecting those new vertices, there are six octahedrons, one in each corner, and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces.

How far within can we go? How far would Zeno go? Where would Max Planck stop?

We had fun mapping the universe using base-2 notation. We were quite surprised to find there were 45 steps within to get down into the size of particle physics and just another 67 steps, going further within, to get down into the Planck scale. The next day we used the Planck Length and multiplied it by two. In 112 steps we were back in the classroom. In another 90 steps we were out to the Observable Universe.

We were dumbfounded. We didn’t know what we didn’t know. Are we doing something wrong? Can you figure out where our logic breaks down? We went looking for references on the internet.

We found Kees Boeke’s base-10 work, but no base-2. We kept looking for almost a year and found bits and pieces, but no map of the universe using base-2 with its very special granularity. We’ve continued looking even while poking at our little map. We added Planck Time, then the other Planck base units and said, “Voila. A Base-2 Map of the Universe.” Totally predictive, it is 100% simple mathematics but it tells a rather different story about the universe. Starting with the Planck base units and all the constants that define each, this this so-called singularity is more like an alphabet-and-number soup it has so many equations defining it. Naturally inflating, it seems to encapsulate all the appropriate epochs of the big bang without a bang.

It is all a bit much to swallow; it is altogether too simple; and hardly anybody has truly wrestled with it. We must be doing something wrong, but what? Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce
****************
Bruce Camber
http://81018.com
https://81018.com/chart
(Small updates, February 2018)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.