Most recent email: Sunday, 25 March 2018
Dear Prof. Dr. Lawrence Sklar:
My first email to you was much too cryptic and it was a poor introduction. I apologize. Plus, this work originates from a high school geometry class so please forgive my naïvetés. Notwithstanding, in 1975, my doctoral studies began with the EPR paradox.
When Neil Turok tells us, “The big bang theory is wrong,” we listen. That he holds onto the infinitely hot, infinitely dense construct without even raising a question is unfortunate; however, most have not seen or followed a simple mathematical chart with the doublings of the four Planck base units.
Yes, we started this chart within a high school geometry class. We initially used just the Planck Length. In 202 doublings, we had our initial chart of the universe. We thought it was a good STEM tool. But as we thought about the first 67 doublings up to the CERN-scale, we knew that we needed more data. In 2014 we added Planck Time. In 2015 we added Planck Mass and Planck Charge. In 2016 we created that horizontal chart to study the numbers more carefully. In 2017 we selected six sets of numbers distributed across the 202 to study more deeply. It was all quite fascinating, but perplexing…
Our key question: Why isn’t this chart a possible first step towards a new model? If each doubling is alive-and-working NOW, fully integrated, the first doubling to the 202nd begins with the simplest mathematics and geometry. What are we failing to understand? Thank you.
Embedded links from above:
1. Home: January 2012: https://81018.com/home
2. Bios: https://81018.com/bec/
3. Turok: June 2017 – https://81018.com/bbtheory
4. Infinitely hot: https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/
5. Chart: https://81018.com/chart
6. Sampling of six: https://81018.com/planck_universe/
7. Beginning of a doubling-to-doubling analysis: https://81018.com/1-202
8. Neil-Nima-Max (recent homepage): https://81018.com/redefinition
First email: Sep 1, 2017, 7:53 AM
Back inside the paperback of S,T&ST from 39 years ago… thank you!
http://81018.com is where I wrestle with it all from the Planck Time to the Age of the Universe in 202 base-2 notations. It seems a bit surreal but logical with the most simple math. Any obvious problems? …misplaced concreteness? Thanks. -Bruce Camber