# Author: Bruce Camber

# White, Simon D.M.

# Simon D.M. White

Articles (Publications)

ArXiv: Reconstructing the Universe in a computer… (June 2018)

CV (PDF)

Google Scholar

Homepage (MPI)

inSPIRE^{HEP}

Wikipedia

YouTube

First email: Tuesday, 7 July 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Simon White:

With some reluctance I write hoping that you might have a quick suggestion that could knock me off my spurious, idiosyncratic track that I’ve been on much too long.

We share a common interest in structure formation and dark matter. You, however, have hundreds of highly-cited, peer-reviewed papers and a most impressive career.

So to the point: Why doesn’t it all begin with the four Planck base units, yes with Planck Length/Planck Time and Planck Mass/Planck Charge? If so, could the first expression of physicality be the sphere? If so, could a primary functionality be sphere stacking? And, if so, could cubic-close packing of equal spheres very nicely extend that functionality?

There are 202 base-2 notations from the first instant to the current expansion with no less than 64 notations totally in the dark (too small to measure, so much smaller than the wave-particle duality).

Please, where are we going wrong? Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

# Farnes, Jamie S.

# Jamie S. Farnes

Oxford e-Research Centre (OeRC)

Oxford University Oxford, UKArticles

ArXiv

Conversation

Google Scholar

Homepage

Twitter

Wikipedia

YouTube

References to Jamie Farnes within this website:

– In an email to Gary Rybka: https://81018.com/2020/07/05/rybka/

First email: 5 July 2020

Dear Jamie:

I hope you might find our work out of a high school (began in December 2011) to be of interest:

Our history: https://81018.com/home/

Our first chart: https://81018.com/big-board/

Our current chart: https://81018.com/chart/

Our STEM perspective: https://81018.com/stem/

Our thoughts on dark matter and dark energy: https://81018.com/dark/

Our current homepage: https://81018.com

*What if*the universe starts with the Planck base units, what might be the first “thing” created?*What if*the first thing created is a sphere defined by those Planck base units?*What if*there is an endless stream of spheres and the first functional activity is sphere stacking?*What if*sphere stacking opens cubic close packing of equal spheres and tetrahedrons and octahedrons are generated? Does Plato follow?*What if*the concept of infinity has been so tainted by philosophies, we miss its most simple definition — continuity creating order, symmetry creating relations, and harmony creating dynamics; and then we add, “Please keep all other definitions to yourself. They are not necessary here.”- And so we finally ask, “Is there a glimmer of truth to our simple
*what if*questions? If so, doesn’t that change our basic equations a bit?”

We stopped using all of this “wild-and-crazy thinking” in our high school curriculum because we didn’t want to taint the students with something so idiosyncratic! Though it has a special logic, it needs deeper exploration. Your thoughts? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

*****************

# Rybka, Gray

# Gray Rybka

ADMX Dark Matter eXperiment

University of Washington

Seattle, WA, USA

ADMX Articles

ArXiv: Extended Search for Invisible Axion with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment (2019)

Faculty Page

Homepage

inSPIRE^{HEP}

`First email: Thursday, July 2, 2:50 PM`

Dear Prof. Dr. Gray Rybka:

Fascinating to read about your work and the work of your team there at the University of Washington and then of your collaboration with University of Florida, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Fermi National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, UC Berkeley, Washington University in St. Louis, Sheffield University, and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.

I am anxious for you all… axions being axions. Do you think maybe Jamie Farnes (Oxford) might be right when he comments, “We’re at a point where our best theories seem to be breaking. We clearly need some kind of new idea. There’s something key we’re missing about how the universe is working.” Also, see Turok, Arkani-Hamed and Tegmark.

*Could it be Newton’s absolute space and time?* If the physical universe begins with the Planck base units and manifests as something, our high school geometry class argued-and-then agreed, that at the Planck base units would first manifest as spheres. There are no less than 67 base-2 notations to the wave-particle duality. That is a lot of space for the mathematics of Langlands and the string folks to occupy. Perhaps there is room for axions as well.

# Physical Review Letters

# Robert Garisto

**Editor, ***Physical Review Letter*

**American Physical Society**: Publisher of *Physical Review™*, *Physical Review Letters™*, *Physical Review X™*, *Reviews of Modern Physics™*, *Physical Review A™*, *Physical Review B™*, *Physical Review C™*, *Physical Review D™*, *Physical Review E™*, *Physical Review Applied™*, *Physical Review Fluids™*, *Physical Review Accelerators and Beams™*, and *Physical Review Physics Education Research™.
*

**TO**: Editor, Physical Review Letters

Dear Dr. Robert Garisto:

From a high school teacher’s teacher and his inquiring class of students, we ask,

*What if*the universe starts with the Planck base units, what might be the first “thing” created?*What if*the first thing created is a sphere defined by those Planck base units?*What if*there is an endless stream of spheres and the first functional activity is sphere stacking?*What if*sphere stacking opens cubic close packing of equal spheres and tetrahedrons and octahedrons are generated? Does Plato follow?*What if*the concept of infinity has been so tainted by philosophies, we miss its most simple definition — continuity creating order, symmetry creating relations, and harmony creating dynamics; and then we add, “Please keep all other definitions to yourself. They are not necessary here.”- And so we finally ask, “Is there a glimmer of truth to our simple
*what if*questions? If so, doesn’t that change our basic equations a bit?”

Our simple extension of that logic is a chart of just 202 base-2 notations encapsulating everything, everywhere for all time. It’s just numbers, but it has a simple expression that our students grasped. BUT, we stopped using all of this “wild-and-crazy thinking” in our curriculum because we didn’t want to taint the students with something so idiosyncratic! Though it has a special logic, nobody seems to care. Could you tell us why? Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. Our introduction to you? We were captivated by your being the arbiter of the 2011 wager in the castle! -BEC

# The first soldiers of war in 4000 BCE

**Editor’s note**: The links from the image and description go back to a homepage discussion about the nature of violence. A fascinating article by independent military history scholars is here.

# Zong, Chuanming

**Chuanming Zong**

Tianjin Center for Applied Mathematics (TCAM)

Tianjin, China

**Articles**: Mysteries in Packing Regular Tetrahedra (**PDF**)

• “The kissing number, blocking number and covering number of a convex body”, in Goodman, Pach, Pollack (eds.), *Surveys on Discrete and Computational Geometry: Twenty Years Later (AMS-IMS-SIAM Joint Summer Research Conference, June 2006, Snowbird, Utah)*, Contemporary Mathematics, **453**, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, pp. 529–548, doi:10.1090/conm/453/08812, 2008

ArXiv (19): On Lattice Coverings by Simplices, 2015 (PDF) **Books**: Sphere packings, Springer, 1999

• The Cube-A Window to Convex and Discrete Geometry, 2009

Homepage

Mathematics Genealogy Project

ResearchGate

Twitter

Wikipedia: Keller’s conjecture, H. F. Blichfeldt, Kissing Number

**References within this website to your work**:

May 26, 2020: https://81018.com/duped/#R3-2

May 5, 2020: https://81018.com/duped/#Aristotle

_______________ https://81018.com/duped/#1b

April 2020: https://81018.com/fqxi-aristotle/

March 2020: https://81018.com/imperfection/

October 2018: https://81018.com/realization6/

January 2016: https://81018.com/number/#En7

**Please note**: It appears that China has disabled the links to servers coming through the USA. We’ll will try to re-route some of those links.

Third email: Wednesday, May 28, 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Chuanming Zong:

First, let me congratulate you on your new location. Wonderful. It appears that you are still within 100 miles of Beijing. That’s excellent.

I am still quoting you after all these years** (see above).** Because the citations were getting so numerous, I created references page for you and Prof. J. Lagarias. My page for you: https://81018.com/2020/05/28/zong/

In these days and times, my most important conclusion is here about all our work, collectively and individually: https://81018.com/duped/#R3-2 Of course, if you would like anything changed, deleted, or added, I will be glad to accommodate your request. Thank you.

Warm regards,

Bruce

Second email: Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Your paper is sensational.

It is exactly what I needed to be assured that Frank-Kaspers

and many others were not leading us astray.

Your mathematics and analysis are spot on.

Let me share my reasons for my enthusiasm below this note to you. Thanks.

-Bruce

**PS. Your work helps us with #2 and #4 below:**

**1. The universe is mathematically very small.**

Using base-2 exponential notation from the Planck Length

to the Observable Universe, there are somewhere over 202.34

and under 205.11 notations, steps or doublings. NASA’s Joe Kolecki

helped us with the first calculation and JP Luminet (Paris Observatory)

with the second. Our work began in our high school geometry

classes when we started with a tetrahedron and divided the edges

by 2 finding the octahedron in the middle and four tetrahedrons

in each corner. Then dividing the octahedron we found

the eight tetrahedron in each face and the six octahedron

in each corner. We kept going inside until we found the Planck Length.

We then multiplied by 2 out to the Observable Universe. Then it

was easy to standardize the measurements by just multiplying

the Planck Length by 2. In 202 notations we go from the smallest to the largest possible measurements of a length.

**2. The very small scale universe is an amazingly complex place.**

Assuming the Planck Length is a singularity of one vertex, we also

noted the expansion of vertices. By the 60th notation, of course, there are

over a quintillion vertices and at 61st notation well over 3 quintillion more

vertices. Yet, it must start most simply and here we believe the work

within cellular automaton and the principles of computational equivalence

could have a great impact. The mathematics of the most simple is being

done. We also believe A.N. Whitehead’s point-free geometries should

have applicability.

3. This little universe is readily tiled by the simplest structures.

The universe can be simply and readily tiled with the four hexagonal plates

within the octahedron and by the tetrahedral-octahedral-tetrahedral chains.

**4. And, the universe is delightfully imperfect.**

In 1959, Frank/Kaspers discerned the 7.38 degree gap with a simple

construction of five tetrahedrons (seven vertices) looking a lot like the Chrysler logo. We have several icosahedron models with its 20 tetrahedrons and call *squishy geometry*. We also call it quantum geometry (in our high school). Perhaps here is the opening to randomness.

**5. The Planck Length as the next big thing.**

Within computational automata we might just find the early rules

that generate the infrastructures for things. The fermion and proton

do not show up until the 66th notation or doubling.

I could go on, but let’s see if these statements are interesting

to you in any sense of the word. -BEC

First email: Fri, Aug 30, 2013, 7:19 PM

Just a terrific job. A wonderful read.

Thank you.

Coming up on two years now, we still do not know what to do with a simple little construct: https://81018.com/2014/05/21/propaedeutics/

That five-tetrahedral construct plays a key role.

Your work gives me a wider and deeper perspective.

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

# Dyer, Wayne W. (May 10, 1940 – August 29, 2015)

## Twitter: May 9, 2020

Editor’s note: Along the path, we all bump into all sorts of people with very strong egos. There is a fine balance between strong and arrogant and even narcissistic. In the early ’70s, he wrote his first book that sold over 100 million copies! Notwithstanding, with such initial success, there seemed to be a balance with Wayne Dyer. His estate appears to be carrying on his legacy both with his Twitter feed and website. -BEC

Our little start uses base-2 to go from Max Planck’s most basic units to the age of the universe in 202 doublings: http://81018.com It’s just a start!

# McTaggart, Lynne

**This page is: https://81018.com/2020/05/07/McTaggart/**

**A Message on Friday, May 23, 2020**

You are doing important work. Congratulations.

There’s so much to learn within the power of eight.

I ask people who push a particular worldview,

“Is it fully integrated with the universe?”

For most of us the universe is too big.

Very simple mathematics can make it

so much smaller, it becomes intimate.

That’s a little different.

To have it fully integrated within a simple model

surely is a bit peculiar, but it’s possible.

First you outline the universe: https://81018.com/chart/

and then you look for those most-obvious functionalities

that readily build on each other.

Before I get more verbose, let me thank you

again for all that you do to have us grasp

the essences of relationality.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. I think this most recent work on our site

is a special breakthrough: https://81018.com/duped/

Nobody should be arrogant, especially

Aristotle, Newton and Hawking! -B

# Einstein’s Circles and Spheres

There are spheres of influence and circles of friends and students. We’ll begin to see how Einstein eventually touched everybody in the world. We will be particularly looking for Einstein’s discussions about Max Planck’s calculations that became known as the Planck base units: Planck Length, Planck Time, Planck Mass and Planck Charge.

1900-1909 (English translation) and beyond 1914

- Heinrich Burkhardt (1908)
- Paul Ehrendest (1912)
- Fritz Haber
- Conrad and Paul Habicht
- David Hilbert (1912)
- Ludwig Hopf
- Anton Lampa
- Max Laue
- Max Planck (1905)
- Hans Tanner
- Wilhelm Wien
- Heinrich Zangger (1912)