Book: Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective, Oxford University Press, 2005
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 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? Barrows? Maybe Langlands? Maybe Wilczek? How about 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!
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?