Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Space and Time: Inertial Frames, 2002, 2009
Wikipedia: There is no primary page but several references to published works.
YouTube: Gravity, Geometry, Philosophy: 100 Years in Einstein’s Universe, March 5, 2015
First email: September 10, 2017
Reference: Understanding Space-Time: The Philosophical Development of Physics from Newton to Einstein, Cambridge University Press, 2006
Dear Prof. Dr. Robert DiSalle:
We are trying to find a true scholar within the history and foundations of of science and philosophy who has entertained the concept of encapsulating the universe within the 202 base-2 notations starting at the Planck units and going up to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe. It is a fascinating integrated view of our universe. Of course, in 1957 Kees Boeke did do an introductory base-10 chart but he made no further claims.
Our little project began in 2011 in a high school geometry class where we were chasing the tetrahedral-octahedral clusters from our classroom model back to the CERN scale (dividing by 2) in about 47 jumps, and then back to the Planck scale in 67 additional jumps. The next day, when we multiplied by 2, in just 90 jumps we were out to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe.
It became our sweet little STEM tool until we started questioning the first 67 notations.
Of course, only math can fill those first 60 or so notations. Who might make sense of that math? Sir Martin? Barrows? Maybe Langlands? Perhaps Wilczek? Might you?
I’ll continue dabbling with the model. As idiosyncratic as it is, have we stumbled on to something? That little model works wonders for space and time!
Using the baseball metaphor, I know in this game, we are well outside the left field lines. Idiosyncratic would be a kind description of our project! Is it just specious thinking or could it possibly be dressed up and brought out onto the playing field?