Collins, Francis

Francis Sellers Collins

National Institutes for Health
Washington, DC

Awards: Presidential Medal of Freedom, National Medal of Science, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Books: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
CV (41 pages, last update 2013)

Note: Many articles make references to Collins. For my own edification, I specially note the work of Don Page (Alberta), Does God So Love the Multiverse? (2008) (PDF)

2020 recent email: August 20, 2020, 4:47 PM

RE: Congratulations indeed! The Language of God has 2020 vision.

Dear Dr. Francis Collins:

Congratulations on winning the Templeton Award! Outstanding. Legendary!

It has been over seven years since we’ve communicated, yet I now have several references to you within my evolving website:

I’ll be updating these pages and I will be developing a primary page of references. Best wishes with your work to grasp and control all the parasites and viruses and other pathogens of this world!

Best wishes,

2014 Email: 7 February 2014, 4:04 PM

Dear Dr. Francis Collins:

As a sequel to the Big Board-little universe, you might find this of
some interest:

Your most critical comments would be profoundly appreciated.


2013 Email: Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:31 PM

Dear Dr. Francis Collins:

Thank you for your work to bring new light to old belief systems. Your book, The Language of God, is on my bookshelf. That you are a profound Christian thinker is obvious. That you have been profoundly criticized by the best of the atheists is also quite obvious.

Most atheists do not have answers to some rather simple questions about life.

In December 2011 I was helping a high school teacher, part of our extended family, to engage his students in base-2 exponential notation applied to the smallest and largest known measurements within our physical world. We started with the Planck :Length and went out to the Observable Universe. Both measurements are well-known but base-2 notation had not been applied to that range. We discovered 202.34 notations (doublings, layers or steps) by simply multiplying the Planck Length by 2 and then multiplying each result by 2 until we reached the largest measurement.

It is a different kind of ordering system than base-10 because its granularity has a parallel construct to many processes in chemistry and biology.

Is it useful? Should it be encouraged? If you would like to take a look at some of the discussions around it, some of our work is posted here:




Overduin, James

James Overduin

Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252

Articles: What If There Were No Gravity? – Scientific American
ArXiv: Waves and causality in higher dimensions with Paul S. Wesson .
——Scaling Relations for the Cosmological “Constant” in Five-Dimensional Relativity, 2014.
——Finite cosmology and a CMB cold spot, 2006
Book(s): Principles of Space-Time-Matter: Cosmology, Particles and Waves in Five Dimensions with Paul Wesson
Google Scholar
Homepages (Towson)
YouTube: Why do we need a single theory of physics?

First email: 18 September 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. James Overduin:

Your significant work with Paul Wesson has come to my attention. I must say, “Congratulations.” You did so much work together I had to create a reference page just to keep things straight:

Now I am hoping that you can help interpret your colleague’s quote within a Wikipedia article about the Planck units. Though I am not a scholar, I do ask questions about the presuppositions that we all bring to bear on any conceptual frame of reference. I have four:
1) What is the assumed understanding of the nature of time? …of space?
2) What, if anything, is assumed about the finite-infinite relation?
3) How is light defined?
4) How are quantum fluctuations defined?

Of course, these questions are never easy to answer and finding even a semblance of an answer is often difficult.

With all your work, I am confident there is clarity within all four areas and that information will help me to understand Paul Wesson’s comments about the proper handling of the Planck units.

This particular track of my work began back in 2011 in our high school geometry classes where we were examining how tetrahedrons and octahedrons can readily tile and tessellate going within smaller-and-smaller and going out larger-and-larger. We got carried away using base-2 notation. We also got carried away with Euler and Zeno and Planck… and, yes, also with pi, spheres, sphere stacking and cubic close packing of equal spheres.

We mapped the universe! Now it is time to reel it in and get real.

I need another week or so with all your writings so I can frame my questions most carefully in light of your joint work with Paul Wesson. Would you object to another email sometime soon? Thank you.

Most sincerely,


PS. I’m working to tighten up (at least a little) this article:

RE: 9-12 Geometry class STEM tool puzzles us.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

NCTM is the world’s largest mathematics education organization
1906 Association Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191

First email: September 10, 2020, 6:02 PM 

RE: Mathematically mapping the universe
Yet, even our best 6th graders appreciated this STEM tool!

Hi –

Homegrown STEM tools can be inspirational and ours was no exception.  In our geometry classes we divided the edges of a tetrahedron in half and discovered the four smaller tetrahedrons in each corner and an octahedron in the middle. We then divided the edges of that octahedron in half and found the smaller octahedrons in the six corners and eight tetrahedrons, one in each face. Thinking a bit like Zeno, we continued the process of dividing by 2. In 45 steps (on paper only), we were in the area of the CERN-scale of particles and waves and in 67 more steps going within, we were within the Planck scale. We then used the Planck Length and Planck Time, multiplied by 2, and in 112 steps we were back out to the classroom’s original objects but we were at a fraction of a fraction of a second. In just another 90 steps or doublings, we were out to the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe.

Just 202 doublings. We wondered about our simple logic. Did we just mathematically include everything, everywhere for all time?

It was much more granular than Kees Boekes 1957 work using base-10 to chart the universe in 40 jumps. Ours was based on Planck base units and it had a de facto geometry.

We dubbed our model “the perfect STEM tool.” Even our AP sixth grade science class understood it! But, when we sent our little STEM project to Scientific American, they ignored us. Even Wikipedia rejected our summary as “original research.” The AAAS and Nature magazines rejected us without comment. We’ve written to a diversity of scholars and even they are reluctant to comment.

So, we’re going back over our logic and math, asking, “What are we doing wrong?

Perhaps there is someone out there who could help us?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

PS. This could be signed by the head of our math department, plus one of our best students, plus our physics teacher. -BEC

Nicolai, Hermann – In Process: Tuesday, 16 September 2020

Hermann Nicolai

Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik
(Albert-Einstein-Institut), Am Mühlenberg 1, D-14476 Potsdam GERMANY

American Physical Society (APS)
Article: The physics of infinity , George F. R. Ellis, Krzysztof A. Meissner & Hermann Nicolai, Nature Physics 14 , 770–772, 23 July 2018
E10 for beginners (PDF), Reinhold W. Gebert & Hermann Nicolai, Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Hamburg, Germany, 1994
ArXiv (91-121): Softly broken conformal symmetry
Editor, executive editor of the journal General Relativity and Gravitation
Wikipedia (active translation from German)

First email:  Thursday, 17 September 2020

Dear Prof. Dr. Hermann Nicolai:

Your article with Ellis and Meissner, The physics of infinity, is so very important. Infinity is too little understood and it is overly abused by many (and perhaps I am foremost among them). Late in 2011 I began my initial studies of the Planck base units and general cosmology. I was not a fan of cosmology (long story) and even less of the concept of a big bang and Guth’s inflationary model. Then, I found a crowd of scholars, including the likes of Neil Turok, who were also uneasy with it all.

In 2011 we did a deep dive into basic geometries, particularly the tetrahedron and octahedron ( It was a high school geometry class! We came up from that dive with a model of the universe defined by 202 base-2 notations from the Planck base units to the current time. It’s a simple model, totally naive, yet it seemed to contain everything, everywhere for all time. And, it seemed that our emerging model was a natural inflation from the very first moment up to and including today and the current time.

Yet, this is a note about you and your work. To engage your work, I have surveyed your ArXiv articles, I am currently researching your infinite-dimensional hyperbolic Kac-Moody algebra, supergravity, and how it emerges as E10 symmetry. I am trying to understand in what ways E10 is a fundamental symmetry of nature, a penultimate or ultimate definition of reality.

I am also investigating Meissner’s work, “The symmetries that govern the world of elementary particles.” Your “Warsaw and Potsdam” group does impressive work. If you can unify all the forces of nature consistent with existing observations, you’ve got the attention of the world. If you correctly anticipate the existence of new particles and key properties, the world will beat a path to your two doors!

As the executive editor of the journal General Relativity and Gravitation, you have seen most every crackpot idea in the world. From the little you have seen, I am confident this email will fall quickly into such a category, yet can you tell us why? Is it that space and time are not absolute? Is it that a finite-infinite relation is considered really real? Is it that we anticipate that Aristotle’s 1800-year mistake is actually the gap that is the measurable quantum fluctuations? I might note that I asking if fluctuations could go much deeper toward the Planck base units, but not all the way. That would infer there is a domain of perfection from the Planck units to those systems that allow that gap to come alive and dominate that domain.

Please excuse me for going on so long.

Because this work will probably be thrown into the crackpottery basket, I have started a page about you and your work here: That page also reminds me of any correspondence that I have sent. I will respect your email box!

If there is anything you would have me change, add or delete, I would gladly accommodate any request. Thank you.



Starobinsky, Alexei

Alexei StarobinskyStarobinsky

L.D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics
Russian Academy of Sciences
Chernogolovka, Moscow Oblast, Russia

ArXiv: (1 of 140+ articles), Global properties of the growth index (2019)
Google Scholar
Gruber-Yale 2013 Cosmology Prize
Kavli Prize
Scientific American

References within this website:
A post where this email is linked!

August 11, 2020, 9:52 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Alexei Starobinsky:

You are among the signatories of rebuttal to the Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb, Pop Goes the Universe (2017) Scientific American article. Here are the most luminous, creative people on earth who have spent a lifetime in search of answers. And, this is our current state of affairs?

Could we break the logjam with a radically different start that echoes back to Lemaître?

I think you could help break the logjam if you could net down the key functional relations within three of your articles but in light of a simple “what if” question. Any three articles might do, however, I am attracted to the following: (1) your 1980 singularity treatise (Physics Letters B, Volume 91, Issue 1, 24 March 1980, Pages 99-102), (2) Reconstructing dark energy (International Journal of Modern Physics D 15 (12), 2105-2132, 2008), and (3) the 2018 group’s work, Exploring Cosmic Origins with CORE (Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Volume 2018, April 2018).

The “what if” question is unusual and quite idiosyncratic. It will require the suspension of old concepts about space and time. What if the very first moment of space-time and matter-energy is defined by the Planck base units and the first expression within that space-time is an infinitesimal sphere with all the dynamics of the Fourier transform and other spherical dynamics about which we are so well acquainted?

It could be a difficult assignment, but who better to consider such a prospect given your history and current perspectives. What do we have to lose? Thank you.

And, please, let me congratulate you on an extraordinary career.

Most sincerely,

Templeton Foundation, August 14, 2020

Top-level Pages

from August 2020 back to August 31, 2018 on
(Each of these 72 posts served as a homepage for a period of time on this website)
  1. August 25: Big Bang Cosmology Gets Swallowed-Up
  2. August 2: History of the First Three Minutes of the Universe
  3. July 20: Concepts & Ideas: Open for collaborations.
  4. July 11 (Sunday): A request for a critical review of these claims…
  5. June 25: Integrate Everything-Everywhere-for all time –
    A Different Model To End Violence
  6. May 24: Duped by Aristotle, Newton & Hawking
  7. May 23: Infinite-finite
  8. April 23: Our Warm and Fuzzy Universe
  9. March 24: We do not understand space and time.
  10. March 8: Imperfection and indeterminacy
  11. March 1: Claim
  12. February 23: Mathematical perfections and  moments of perfection
  13. February 9: 12 Key Concepts (A Re-initiated Homepage)
  14. January 26: An Alternative View of the Universe
  15. January 10: A Different Framework Defines the Universe
  16. January 1, 2020: Still cutting a trail, years later, at the beginning of the year,
  17. December 21, 2019: This cosmological model has logic; the big bang has noise.
  18. December 20: Wrong since 1687, we can start to get it right.
  19. December 18: Impeachment Day, 2019 – To the New York Times
  20. December 10Accessing a comprehensive orientation to life and the universe
  21. November 26: Missing pieces – a compilation of the last five homepages
  22. November 11: Bridge the finite-infinite – a return to 1687
  23. October 12: The most simple-and-comprehensive Map of our Universe
  24. October 1: Simple Formulas – 12 points absorb the universe in 202 steps.
  25. September: It’s been “top down” too long. Time to build from the “bottom up”
  26. August 14: Improve on the work of our Nobel laureates
  27. July 31: Transformations – From cubic close packing to the Fourier transform
  28. July 14: Questions, questions, and more questions
  29. July 2: On The Nature of Time in the Light of those 202.34+ Notations
  30. June 16: Gell-Mann says, “…get heard, believed, and taken seriously.”
  31. June 9: Versus Lemaître – A  simple, logical, exponentia; cosmology
  32. June 3: Hattie is right… We’ve been wrong about too many important things
  33. May 1: Defining structure from the insights of our world’s genius-scholars
  34. April 28: Dimensionless constants: …bridging the gap
  35. April 22: From atoms to particles to planckspheres
  36. April 20: STEM – Seeking the edge of understanding
  37. April 3: From the simplicity of pi to the complexity of E8
  38. March 30: Just Maybe We Are Too Hung Up On Particles
  39. March 25: Back to the basics – …built with planckspheres
  40. March 24: Let’s start at the very beginning until the universe is filled with spheres
  41. March 23: The Sphere: Our Most-Basic Building Block of the Universe
  42. March 22: An open letter – EPR and Bohm, Bell,
    Weisskopf, Costa de Beauregard, J.P. Vigier…
  43. March 12: Five Assumptions About the Nature of the Universe – A New Orientation
  44. March 10: Pi Day is March 14
  45. March 6: Three Concepts, Each A Step To Redefine Our Universes
  46. March 5: Foundations — The Universe As Extended Planck Base Units
  47. March 2: The Universe Clock – The Age of the Universe in seconds.
  48. March 1: Assumptions/first principles to explore a Planck-based Universe
  49. February 28: The natural inflation of our Quiet Expansion challenges the big bang.
  50. February 24: Too Many Open Questions: What is infinity? …time? …space?
  51. Jan. 31: Might this simple model of the universe work?
  52. January 8, 2019: This simple model of the universe: Debunk it or lift it up…
  53. December 18, 2018:  To Create Our Best Possible World
  54. December 10: This Universe Starts At The Planck Scale
  55. December 7: Understanding Space-Time-and-Infinity
  56. November 12: To grasp a new orientation to life and the universe is not easy.
  57. November 4, 2018: No time for scientific elitism
  58. October 31: The first three minutes revisited
  59. October 26: An introduction to this website and our Chart of Our Universe
  60. October 23: The Redefinition of a Point: Going back to the very beginning
  61. October 22: What comes before Quantum Gravity?
  62. October 20: Five short stories about pages on the website
  63. October 14: Searching in the dark for Dark Matter and Dark Energy
  64. October 12: What would you do with this model of the universe?
  65. October 1: The first 64 notations out of the 202
  66. September 28: An Open letter about nature of light
  67. September 20: “Gravity, Oh Gravity… Why Such Gravity?”
  68. September 19: On Validating The Efficacy of our Model.
  69. September 17: Open Letter (email) – Notes are sent to scholars everyday.
  70. September 14: Your critical review is encouraged.
  71. September 12: Questions – Frequently Asked Questions.
  72. September 5: Commonsense – It is not common and it is not a sense.
  73. August 31: Review -An alternative to Big Bang Cosmology.

Elizade, Emilio

Emilio Elizadeelizade-left

Professor Ad Honorem, National Higher Research Council of Spain (2020)
Barcelona, Spain

Articles: All that Matter… in One Big Bang… Other Cosmological Singularities, MDPI,   ________  Basel, 2018, URL: )
Celebration of  70th birthday (PDF) Main Menu
Google Scholar

First email: Wednesday, 29 July 2020 at 6 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Emilio Elizade:

Today I made reference to your MDPI article (URL above)
within an online page here:
Congratulations. It is a very bold and well-written piece.

Many of our finest scholars still say, “…after the big bang.”
Yet, many basic, basic questions about the big bang go unanswered:
1. What is the relation between space/time?
2. Does that relation necessarily unfold the mass/energy relation?
3. What does the first moment of space-time, mass-energy look like?
4. Is sphere-stacking the beginning of base-2 notation?
5. Does cubic-close packing generate our geometries?
6. Is the universe foundationally exponential?
7. Is the infinite a necessary part of the definition of the finite?

Now, we have a very speculative model, totally idiosyncratic,
that I suspect you have not seen or heard about it because
I have not learned to write to be published! After a 30 year
break to earn a living, I unwittingly refocused late in 2011
and have slowly gained some confidence.

Do you think it would be worthwhile to try to write something up for MDPI?
Thank you.

Most sincerely,

PS. I will start a little reference page to your work. At my age, it is
necessary to keep things within a sense of order. Thanks. -BEC