@NewsfromScience Largest-possible, dynamic continuity equation: Planck Time to Age of the Universe has 202+ notations http://81018/com/chart
RE: We just received an email saying our manuscript was rejected!
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)?
Dear AAAS Science Editors,
Will there be any response to our letter below?
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 half-sized tetrahedrons and an octahedron. Inside the octahedron, dividing each edge in half and connecting those new vertices, there are six half-sized octahedrons 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 less than 45 steps within to get down to the size of particle physics and just another 67 steps within to get down to the Planck scale. The next day we multiplied by two. In about 90 steps we were out to the Observable Universe. We didn’t know what we didn’t know.
What are we doing wrong? Where does logic break down?
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 five 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 “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.