**Harvey R. Brown**

Emeritus, Oxford University

Oxford, United Kingdom

ArXiv

**Book**: Physical Relativity:

Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective, Oxford University Press, 2005

CV

Homepage Philosophy

Wikipedia

YouTube: Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study (NDIAand many others

Second email: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:52 AM

I was a product of the BOSTON COLLOQUIUM FOR PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, the Cohen-Wartofsky group. Of course, the more creative among that group — Stachel, Shimony, Glashow — had little patience with the Planck units. It took Frank Wilczek (MIT) writing in *Physics Today* in 2001 to move those units beyond a Dirac-like numerology.

Today, using base-2 from the Planck units, the universe is encapsulated within 202 notations. The first 60 or so notations bring us to the edges of the CERN-scale. Notations 60-to-67 are a transition from a truly small-scale (still infinitesimally small length and time) physical universe to the human scale. It has only begun to be documented and explored.

- Which is better a Worldview or an integrated universe view?
- … big bang or Turok’s perpetual bangs (I would say infinitesimal bangs)
- Is space-and-time absolute or relational and derivative of…?
- Are continuity, symmetry, and harmony faces of the infinite?
- Can we keep that “i” of infinite small?

So, maybe the beginnings of a theory: https://81018.com/spacetime/

Natural Inflation: https://81018.com/thrust/

Thanks.

-Bruce

PS. Do you have any objections with this first pass at posting my email to you? It will be updated soon and will contain references to all your various web-based data.

First email: 9 September 2017

RE: Upon reading *Physical Relativity, Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective*

Dear Prof. Dr. Harvey R. Brown:

We are trying to find somebody within the history of science and philosophical thinking 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 used base-10.

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 45 jumps, and then back to the Planck scale in 67 additional jumps. The next day, when we multiplied those classroom objects 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 those first 67 notations.

Math is math. Continuity is continuity. Symmetry is symmetry. Of course, only math can fill those first 60 or so notations. Who might make sense of that math? Sir Martin? Barrow? Maybe Langlands? Maybe Wilczek? How about you?

I’ll continue dabbling with our model. As idiosyncratic as it is, have we stumbled on to something? That little model suggests a very different space and time.

My frequently changing homepage: http://81018.com

A simple overview: https://81018.com/revolution

A chart of all the numbers: https://81018.com/chart

My simple theory: https://81018.com/spacetime/

Natural Inflation: https://81018.com/thrust/

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?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

****************

Bruce Camber

http://81018.com