@7:28 PM · Jan 25, 2020 @AnoushehAnsari: Understanding our beingness requires a better model of who we are and why. Newton still has us “on a hold” with his absolute space and time. A different model: https://81018.com The universe in 202 base-2 steps from Planck’s base units! (updated)
First email: Monday, 27 January 2020 @ 7 PM
Dear Ms. Anousheh Ansari:
How entirely inspiring to reach for the stars.
Thank you for being so courageous.
Many people want to follow in your footsteps.
In 2012 our high school geometry class backed into a very novel model
of the universe. https://81018.com/home/ We had started with the
simple geometry of a tetrahedron and its internal octahedron: https://81018.com/tot/
We kept going inside, dividing by 2 and within 45 steps we were in the range
of particles physics; in another 67 steps, we were in the range of Max Planck’s basic units. When we multiplied those classroom models by 2, in just 90 doublings, we were in the range of the age and size of the universe. That goes from the first moment of time to the current moment in time in just 202 doublings.
Yes, we had encapsulated the universe in 202 base-2 notations! https://81018.com/chart/
We wrote it up and shared it with other schools until one of our highly-respected scholars told us, “It’s idiosyncratic.” We were getting suspicious because we couldn’t find anything about “base-2 notation from the Planck scale to the size and age of the universe.” Nothing. Not on the web or in any article or book: https://81018.com/why-now
We began testing it with younger people. One of our sixth grade classes (the savants) got quite excited about it, so we know it’s not too-too difficult to grasp. Just think, to have the entire universe on one chart! It is empowering. It’s challenging. And, there has been no scholar who tells us that it is wrong. Idiosyncratic, yes; and, we agree! So, we have continued to explore it and ask questions.
Great fun! Do you see anything wrong with our rather comprehensive outline of our universe? Thanks.