Most recent email: Thursday, April 29, 2019
Though Freeman Dyson and I go back to work in 1979, I remember writing to you in and around 1970! I am getting too forgetful and these postings are a way for me to check on my most recent communications with a person. If you would like anything changed, updated or deleted on this page, just let me know and I will be as expeditious as possible. Thanks.
Third email: Thursday, June 28, 2018, 9:21 PM
Hi Elizabeth –
You might find today’s homepage to be of some interest:
In a few weeks it will be easily accessed at this URL:
We are in South San Francisco and Sacramento for the next two months!
Might you be coming into the area?
Second email: Monday, April 30, 2018, 3:46 PM
Hi Elizabeth –
I just came upon the work of Nassim Haramein where I learned from his
“Unified Field And Sacred Geometry” that you were attempting to write
a scaling law essentially to encapsulate the universe. How is that going?
Might the 202 doublings of the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe
and the size of the universe be a simple solution? Perhaps too simple, at least
it is a start: https://81018.com/chart
First email: Sunday, July 17, 2016, 9:05 AM
We corresponded back in the ’70s. Noyes, Bastin, Bohm were all mutual friends. My interim story is too arduous, perhaps for another time. You have been prodigious. What a vitae!
In 2011 in a high school I had the five geometry classes go inside the tetrahedron and octahedron. Dividing by 2, this perfect, interior tessellation brought them face-to-face with the proton in just 40 steps, and then face-to-face with the Planck base units in another 67 steps. A sweet journey it was. In our next time together, we multiplied by 2 and in about 90 steps we were out to the edge of the universe, well beyond Kees Boeke.* 3.33 times more granular with imputed geometries and the Plancks, what was not to love about it?
The project got away from us and has it own life:
That link goes to a rather large, horizontally-scrolled file.
Is it all wet? …too idiosyncratic? …too simple?
I thought you would find it of some interest, if just as a novelty. A penny for your thoughts? Thanks.
*Of course, Kees Boeke’s base-10 is great fun, but it doesn’t mimic
cellular reproduction and bifurcation theory, nor does it engage
cellular automaton, or the automorphic forms of the Langlands