References and updated references to his work with this website:
- Asking our scholars a simple question… could this model of the universe work?
- An “Open Letter: A sample from many similar letters” (my first email just below)
“There’s nothing to be embarrassed about. If I gave up science every time I made a mistake I wouldn’t have got very far at all. That’s the point. And it does highlight how science works, that science is about transparency, it’s about being prepared to throw away an idea or notion or theory in the light of new understanding or evidence or experimental result. It’s not like other ideologies or beliefs of religions where you will stick to your views no matter what, science is about going where the evidence…”
Most recent email: July 15, 2021 @ 4:56 PM
I believe there is a direct correspondence between the breakdown of values and the inadequacies of our scientific models. It contributes to narrow worldviews and solipsism. If the universe is mathematical (it is) and highly-integrated(in question), that starting point, now over 13.8 billion years, is a key number.
Max Planck’s base units might also be considered other key numbers. Do you believe Max’s 1899 calculations
of his base units are “close enough” to be an accurate description of the parameters of the first instant of the universe? If not, are there any such calculations that would be?
I believe John Ralston of the University of Kansas is working on such recalculations. Thanks.
Second email: January 30, 2019 @ Noon
Dear Prof. Dr. Jim Khalili (aka Jameel Sadik Al-Khalili):
I wrote back on September 10 to thank you for your writings which have been very encouraging. I wonder if you might take a look at our basic assumptions page that just went up earlier this month. The primary link is: https://81018.com/boundary/
Does it make any sense to you?
I am working on clarity of thought and my depth of knowledge. Both have serious deficiencies! Yet your quote, now highlighted below, stands as a constant reminder to carry on; and, for that, I remain very grateful.
First email: 10 September 2018 Homepage update: 17 September 2018
“There’s nothing to be embarrassed about… (see quote above)..”
– Prof. Dr. Jameel Sadik Al-Khalili
Dear Prof. Dr. Jim,
Thank you for your writings and de facto encouragement. We are in a quandary. Key scholars, it seems, ignore our data set believing it to be meaningless. Perhaps you can tell us how and why this data is meaningless? If we take the Planck base units and multiply them by 2, and then the results by 2, over and over and over again, in about 202 notations the numbers begin to look like the age and size of the universe: https://81018.com/chart/ Isn’t mathematics about consistency and logic?
When we started the project it was to address Zeno’s paradox and see how many steps within it would take to hit the Planck length wall. For high school, it was pretty heady stuff. A STEM tool! We got going in that direction because we were chasing the tetrahedrons and octahedrons further and further within.
That was 2011. My earlier work at Boston University and MIT then kicked in and I was hooked. It was a model unlike anything I had ever studied — a mathematically-defined universe that went way smaller than I had ever been and considerably larger than I had ever conceived. The first 67 notations opened my eyes. It has taken me six or seven years to begin to get comfortable dropping Newton and Hawking. With my deep respect for Cambridge University scholars, I asked, “How could there ever be a limited Lucasian professor?”
Your thoughts would be treasured as I head into writing an article about gravity.
PS. You have given me a lot of work to do with all your online work.
Wonderful. Thank you.
First Tweet: 10 September 2018
@jimalkhalili Can we understand gravity if we do not understand space, time and infinity? Don’t we know that Newton was off?
http://81018.com asks the question and explores a rather different perspective using Planck’s base units and base-2 notation.