Jens Niemeyer, University of Göttingen, Institute of Astrophysics
Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1, 37077 Göttingen, Germany

ArXiv
CV
Google Scholar
Homepage
inSPIRE^HEP
Publications
Wikipedia (German)
YouTube

Second email: July 10, 2021 at 12 noon

Dear Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer:

My first email just below became the start of a homepage: https://81018.com/empower
Also, I’ve started a reference page with links to your work and copies of these emails to you: https://81018.com/niemeyer/ It helps me to remember to whom I have written and what it was that I said.

Your work, Formation of inflaton halos after inflation, arXiv:2011.13333 [astro-ph.CO] , 2021, is so informative to read, “For a simple model we find these halos have masses of up to 20 kg and radii of the order of 10⁻²⁰ m, roughly 10⁻²⁴ seconds after the Big Bang.” We are most interested to follow the logic of any-and all infinitesimal estimates. It seems that the “after the Big Bang” reference and the citations to Guth, Linde, and Starobinsky are gratuitous. Since the 1999 conference at the Isaac Newton Institute of Cambridge University, the core prognosticators, which included Hawking, have each attempted to rethink the Big Bang. It had been failing in too many ways.

Our radical departure from given theory unwittingly began in 2011 in that high school geometry class. That work now begs the question, “Is pi (π) scale invariant to the Planck scale (or an analogue of it vis-à-vis a Stoney scale or Ralston scale)? Obviously pushing the boundary conditions, the question could also be asked about other key dimensionless constants. I believe the theoretical answer would be a yes.

So, if you were to follow our chart of 202 base-2 notations, the first instance starts within the Planck scale and comes to the current time (Notation-202). At Notation-64 the duration is 9.94×10^-25 seconds and the length scale is 2.98×10^-16 meters. Your 20 kg would appear in Notation-30. Your 10⁻²⁰ meters is within Notations 50-52. At least this base-2 chart gives us approximate values where today we have no ordered system within which to get predictive data.

Your thoughts? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

First email: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 2:26 PM

RE: Mapping the first zeptosecond within Notations 65-to-67 of 202 base-2 exponential notations from the Planck units to the this day, the Now

Dear Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer:

Can we assume that the calculations of George Johnstone Stoney and Max Planck have at least some metaphorical validity as a partial description of the infinitesimal universe?

Might we assume that these numbers could concresce as an infinitesimal sphere? I realize that may be difficult.

What if the universe is in a dynamic relation, historically known as the finite-infinite relation; however, we avoid metaphorical language and consider only the description of the fullness pi (π) as a description of ultimate things? It seems that we can know much more about pi. What if the facets of this most-historic, well-known dimensionless constant are also facets of our very earliest universe and also of the infinite?

We just might give Hilbert and all his extensions some time off.

Now, could a primordial sphere concresce? At what rate per second? Would it be fair to assume one primordial unit of time per primordial sphere? Now, that certainly would be quite a natural inflation.

We started our little project in December 2011 in a New Orleans high school. We are easily ignored so I started putting things up on web just to be able to share them with other schools and a few of the more open scholars. In 2016 we posted a horizontally-scrolled chart from the Planck units to the Age and Size of the Universe. You might enjoy that outline of a map of the universe: https://81018.com/chart/

The most recent work is always the homepage — https://81018.com/ — however, this week’s page revisits one from 2018: https://81018.com/envision/

If the concepts are anywhere close to reality, might it help to inform your work a little?

Congratulations on what you and your team are doing.  I’ll be studying your past work and new developments as much as I can.

Thank you so very much all your work and that of your colleagues.

Warmly,

Bruce

---