Diamandis, Peter

Editor’s note:  Over the years, Bruce Camber has written to Peter Diamandis,
the author of Abundance Insider from PHD Ventures. These are the first posted.
More will be added from prior years.

Peter Diamandis
Abundance Insider
Culver City, CA 90230

Most recent email: 27 November 2018 On being invited to join

Your systems are all all so automated, I am rather sure you don’t know who I am.
I have enough memberships. I am looking for people
who are critical thinkers and who critically and
creatively respond to emails about key issues.

Surround yourselves with thinkers who can take on the universe
and get it under control. Worldviews are much too small.

Email: Saturday, 24 November 2018

Abundance Insider needs an integrated universe view so you can teach others to get beyond their limited worldviews!

Imputing meaning to our mundane activities is a key to our civil society.

If we keep harboring the simplistic constructions of big bang cosmology,
we’ll continue to end up with a solipsism that quickly degrades into a variety of narcissistic expressions where they harvest meaning through a nihilism that adds to all the dystopian nonsense.

If we follow the Planck base units within a mathematical construction that necessarily relates everything, everywhere for all time, perhaps we can re-open old questions such as the very nature of space and time, and finally begin to make a little progress beyond the Standard Models for particle physics and for comsology.


In prior discussions I have suggested to Peter:
1. There is no singularity. The very first fractional moment within space-time is defined by the Planck base units and all the dimensionless constants that define each. Please see the horizontally-scrolled chart.
2. The Universe is highly integrated within 202 base-2 exponential notations from the Planck base units to the current age of the universe. This is a model of the very early universe. The first second takes us into Notation 143 and the first 300 million years (Notation 197) brings us to large-scale structure formation.

“Membership” within his groups is always pricey. Abundance Digital is $1495 per year.

White, Ian Hugh

Ian H. White

Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University
Master of Jesus College
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, England, UK

On this website: Listing with other scholars

First email: 14 November 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Ian White,

You understand light perhaps better than most scholars and you have seen the Light as well! With extraordinary accomplishments — in excess of 900 papers and 30 patents — all while serving as the Master of Jesus College has to be perfectly inspired.

As well, I thank you for all your efforts to increase the throughput of the web. Just brilliant.

I write to you to inquire about Max Planck’s work with his equations from 1899-1905, all now understood as the Planck base units. His simple definition of Planck Time is tP = lP/that is, Planck Time is equal to Planck Length divided by the speed of light. Of course, therefore, light is equal to Planck Length divided by Planck Time.

It is a curious equation.

If we were to apply base-2 notation (doublings) to the Planck units, of course the equation holds true but it becomes a variable speed of light across all of the 202 notations from those base units to the Age of the Universe and the size of the universe. That it all seems to suggest that space and time are discrete, quantized, and derivative could be a welcomed shift in perspective given Einstein’s work and our current bottlenecks  within theoretical physics.

This may all just be silliness; it’s idiosyncratic for sure. Notwithstanding, do you think there could be something here to explore further?  Thank you.

Most sincerely,


Weinberg’s Theory Group

Related Pages on this site: The First Three Minutes Revisited, Letters

String Theory and Quantum Field Theory:

From the Planck Scale to the Hubble Scale

Steven Weinberg, Jacques Distler, Can Kilic, Sonia Paban (IAS), Willy Fischler and Vadim Kaplunovsky of
University of Texas Austin, Austin, TX, United States

This award funds the research activities of Professors Jacques Distler, Willy Fischler, Can Kilic, Sonia Paban and Steven Weinberg of the Theory Group at the University of Texas at Austin.

“Since its foundation, the Theory Group has had a strong track record of conducting research on a broad range of topics with the goal of exploring the fundamental laws of nature. These topics include the dynamics of the very early universe, the relationship between information and black holes (which may lead to crucial insights into the fundamental theory of gravity), the possible extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics (which describes all known particles and their interactions) and the experimental signatures of such extensions, and the exploration of string theory and formal aspects of quantum field theory. This diversified effort to improve our understanding of nature at the deepest levels is well aligned with the goal of advancing the national interest by maintaining and further boosting the role of the United States as the global leader in theoretical high-energy physics. The Theory Group is also actively committed to making physics accessible to a wider audience and achieving a substantial impact outside of academia. This is achieved through popular lectures given to live audiences as well as over other media, through the publication of books at both the public and technical levels, and through the development of web technologies. In addition, the Theory Group takes pride in the training of graduate students and postdocs who continue on to successful careers in this field.

“Specifically, the avenues of research to be conducted during the term of this project include, but are not limited to, the following: Distler will extend the classification of N=2 four-dimensional superconformal field theories and explore a generalization of important results in topological string theory. Fischler will continue his exploration of the physical effects of theta angles on black hole horizons and their experimental signatures as seen by observers hovering at a fixed distance from black holes. He will complete his research on the effects of shockwaves in de Sitter space and the implications for holographic information. He will study the description of mixmaster universes in the context of AdS/CFT. Fischler will also continue his longstanding work on holographic space-time and revisit the initial conditions for inflation. Kilic will explore aspects of collider physics as well as models of dark matter and their experimental signatures. Paban will study theories of inflation with many fields and the conditions under which they reach the adiabatic limit at the end of inflation. Weinberg will continue the search for a modified version of quantum mechanics that will avoid the usual unsatisfactory aspects while retaining the successes of the existing theory.”

$510,000: 2016 Project Grant from National Science Foundation (NSF)

A letter to CERN

Two spots corresponding to the path of protons once around the path within CERN’s Large Hadron Collider
(Image: CERN)

Matthew Donald Chalmers, Editor
CERN Courier
Geneva, Switzerland

Articles: Nobel work shines a light on particle physics 12 October 2018
________ Model physicist (Steven Weinberg), 13 October 2017
________ Forsaken pentaquark particle spotted at CERN, Nature, July 2015
________ Bigger than the HiggsNew Scientist, March 2016
________ Physics World, Stringescape, September 2007

Also, see: Fabiola Gianotti

First email: 22 October 2018

Dear Editor-in-chief, Matthew Chalmers:

First, we thank you for your fascinating account from 10 September 2018,
The Large Hadron Collider: 10 years and counting
and for your 31 August 2018 article,
The day the world switched to particle physics.

We also found Ruth Leopold’s posting
of Lucio Rossi’s work from 31 August 2018,
Viewpoint: Lessons from the accelerator frontier.
It is all quite fascinating.

In the photograph of the proton tracks,
could you tell us at what resolution
are they measuring? What would be
the size of each of the two protons?
How much smaller can the Large Hadron Collider see?
Can it “see” things smaller than 1×10-16 meters?
(certainly below 10-15m, the proton radius)
Might you know at what resolution do
the scientist-scholars believe we will begin
to “see” strings as in string theory?

(10-34 meters was the answer.)

Thank you.

Most sincerely,


PS. Matt gave us permission to use the image of the two proton tracks on our website.  Of course, he expect that credit is given. Apparently he does not have his own personal homepage or homepage at CERN.

How Quantum Uncertainty Emerge from Deterministic Bohmian Mechanics? by
Albert Solé, Xavier Oriols, Damiano Marian, Nino Zanghì, 4 Oct 2016

Loll, Renate


Renate Loll
Radboud University High Energy Physics
Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics
Nijmegen, Netherlands

Articles: Causal structure (2020), The Universe from Scratch (ArXiv 2005)
ArXiv: Renormalization Group Flow in CDT (2014); CDT and Cosmology (2017)
Video: Emergence of quantum spacetime from causal dynamical triangulations
Wikipedia: Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT)

Most recent email: Friday, 17 April 2021

Dear Prof. Dr. Renate Loll:

Is there any possibility that Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT) could be related to cubic close packing of equal spheres? Within the Wikipedia entry, I see that John Baez is among those who are editing that page. That’s excellent. That entry identifies just three people, you, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz as its lead architects and then Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin as people who’ve popularized it. I have come back to CDT because by its very nature, it must see the nothingness beyond-the-unseen and intuit, then articulate the very essence of a beginning point for space-time.

Causal dynamic triangulation describes a most fundamental process.

Yet, given our rather naive work since December 2011 (high school is high school) and our entirely idiosyncratic approach — going within the tetrahedron-octahedron the 112 base-2 steps to around the Planck scale then out the 90-steps to the current time — I also ask, “Could spacetime be fully 3-dimensional near the Planck scale?” In my stretched logic I see an infinitesimal sphere manifesting, sphere stacking and packing (from Kepler to Hales to Zong). CDT comes quickly but later. Possible or just silliness?

As usual I let scholars know when I quote them or use their image to go to this page or footnotes to discuss your work. Though still in process, you are back on today’s homepage here: https://81018.com/questions-1/ The footnotes and references are just now being developed. To attempt to facilitate discussions, I have asked a few questions of my visitors: https://81018.com/questions-1/#Questions I would be glad to send you another note with just those questions to facilitate a discussion. Thank you.

Warm regards,


Third email: Tuesday, 18 June 2019

Yes, you are back up on our homepage today: https://81018.com/believed/
Essentially, inspired by Murray Gell-Mann, I thought you would want to know.

In light of the Ellis Physics on Edge harangue, virtually touching everyone who has been a leading thinker in the past 20 years, right to the final paragraph with Dawid-Rovelli, I repeat the John Wheeler 1986 statement within his article, “How Come the Quantum?” where he says, “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it — in a decade, a century, or a millennium — we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?”

These simple numbers may bear him out: https://81018.com/chart/
Simple processes, like Euler’s equations and base-2 notation give us an entire range of unexplored numbers from the second notation to at least the 64th notation. That’s a science unto itself. Pure math, perhaps the string theorists could finally claim a home.

It is easy to write off simplicity, yet someday these numbers will be explored by the likes of somebody as informed as you are. Thank you.

Most sincerely,


Second email: Sunday, 27 January 2019

Perhaps the earlier email (below) was buried. Perhaps this base-2 model is just too absurd to acknowledge. I am just a simple guy following simple logic.

On one of our homepages I suggest that these are our primary assumptions:

1. The Planck base units of length, time, mass and charge describe a real reality.

2. The conceptual door to this infinitesimal universe is where all four Planck base units concresce (grow together, yet individuate) to create a stream of infinitesimal spheres. Though physical, length-time are well below thresholds of measurement, the progression of mass-charge units can be studied. These four units are, in some manner of speaking, the Janus-face of each other and of light.

3. Conceptually, sphere stacking becomes cubic-closest packing; tetrahedrons and octahedrons emergeDoublings beginOur universe emerges. Their numbers eventually begin to define things within our current scientific realities. This is a natural inflationAnd, it’s not dark.

Since December 2011, I have been carrying on in this light, slowly, intentionally, but naively. I wish somebody of your stature and command of all the academic fields involved would take a moment and put a stop to this effort if it is sheer poppycock. Thank you ever so much.


First email: 21 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Renate Loll:

Thank you for all your work linked (just above), particularly your efforts to discern “…a consistent theory of quantum gravity which describes the dynamical behaviour of spacetime geometry on all scales.”

Our focus has been on the Planck scale. We believe there it has more to contribute than meets the eye.

Between the Planck scale and “CERN-scale of measurements,” there are 67 doublings (or notations or causal sets) of the Planck base units.

[If we assume the very first instant of the universe is that which is defined by Planck Time and Planck Length and Planck Mass and Planck Charge and that there is a natural base-2 expansion, the 202nd notation includes the current day and time].

Perhaps it might be better to start at the first doubling and to observe the logical possibilities.

Essentially we’d be building a unified theory of mathematics, yet this one would be based more on John Wheeler’s sense of simplicity (I love his introduction of this article, How Come the Quantum?) than on Robert Langland’s programs. Langland’s needs the plancksphere that both Max Planck and Wheeler anticipated.

Might other factors like Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT), Regge calculus, fractal structure, 2-D spacetime, and the flavors of the simplex be included in an appropriate build-out and within an appropriate doubling?

I think that the emergence at the Planck base units, the simplest planckspheres may well account for what we know as dark matter and dark energy. I believe it’s a relatively simple calculation.

Among all the people to whom I write, I suspect you can debunk this concept most quickly; or, you may be surprised at its simplicity and possibility. Of course, the derivative, discrete nature of space-time is necessary and I think we would do well to redefine the infinite with mathematical terminology and anticipate a finite-infinite transformation possibly further defining the renormalization process..

To say the least, I would enjoy hearing from you.

Most sincerely,

PS. I first became aware of your work through the Perimeter Institute’s 2016 conference, Time in Cosmology I write letters to focus my thoughts in conjunction with the thoughts and work of a person who appears to be vibrant, open, in love with life, and filled with questions.

Follow-up Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT): CDT and Cosmology:
•  Non-renormalizability of perturbative quantum gravity
•  FLRW paradigm:  Physics Beyond the Standard Models of Particles, Cosmology and Astrophysic.
•   Imposing homogeneity and isotropy on spatial slices of constant time, t.
•   So-called “backreaction” effect of inhomogeneities on smaller scales on the dynamics of the universe on larger scales
•   “…an explicit realization of a non-perturbative, Planckian quantum dynamics…”

More Work to do (further research):
•  Path integrals and Gaussian fixed point. See Assaf Shomer’s on page 7: “The derivation of the path integral formula in quantum mechanics of a massive particle involves chopping up the quantum evolution into very short time intervals and inserting complete sets of states between them.”
•  Doplicher S, Fredenhagen K, Roberts JE (1995) The quantum structure of spacetime at the Planck scale and quantum fields. Communications in Mathematical Physics 172(1):187–220
•  Scale invariance and conformal symmetries

Ismael, Jenann

Jenann Ismael

Department of Philosophy
Columbia University
New York, NY

Articles: Passage, Flow, and the Logic of Temporal Perspectives

Homepage  (Columbia)

References within this website: https://81018.com/2016/06/30/perimeter/
See: Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi)

First email: 19 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Jenann Ismael:

I started seeing references to you and your work regarding the structure of space and time. Then, came FQXi, then symmetry, Rovelli’s work, a conference about time at Perimeter… so I started to investigate. When I do, I create this little reference page along with a copy of my notes as I struggle to see how it all fits together.

Since December 2011 we have been studying an application of base-2 notation from the Planck base units to the age and size of the universe. We know well that it falls outside the normal work within physics-philosophy-mathematics today. But, such a simple concept renders rather unusual-even surprising results:
• There are just over 202 doublings. Our working numbers: https://81018.com/chart/
• Too small to measure, the first 64 notations: https://81018.com/64-notations/
• Does it address the derivative structure of space-time? https://81018.com/c/
• The doublings create a natural inflation: https://81018.com/ni/
• Perhaps it is just too simple. The first second emerges within the 143rd notation.
• The 202nd notation has a processing speed of 10.9816 billion years and I am not sure what it means to be just 2.8 billion years into it!

I thought you might find it all of interest. I don’t think it’s just poppycock… If it is, it seems we’ll have to re-examine the foundations of logic, mathematics, and integrity, and the concepts of continuity and symmetry!

On leave from Columbia, I hope your work is going very well and you are making very special progress. I would be delighted to hear from you either way,
poppy cock or not poppycock!

Thank you.



Johnson, George

George Johnson

Santa Fe, New Mexico


Most recent email: 19 October 2018

Dear Mr. Johnson:

References: (1) http://talaya.net    http://sciwrite.org/?_nozc_=1
RE: “How Is the Universe Built? Grain by Grain” Password: 1999

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This note is a slight re-write of an email sent in 2013. The links
have all been updated and some parts deleted to shorten it a bit.

“I will be quoting from your article, NYT 1999. Password: 1999
I had wish that I had read it much earlier. I also wish that I met you when we were
filming in Santa Fe for our television series about best business practices
on PBS-TV in the USA and Voice of America-TV around the world.

The yoctometer. In 2013 from Google there were just 6070 references.
Now five year later it is up to 44,700. People are starting to study
the very, very small.

“Have you ever seen base-2 exponential notation applied to
the Planck base units to Age of the Universe and the observable
universe? There are 202.34 doublings or steps. We couldn’t find it,
so created a little chart for our high school geometry and physics classes.
The most recent chart is here: https://81018.com/chart (horizontally-scrolled)

“I thought you might find these pages of some interest.”

One of the homepages looks at dark matter and dark energy:

“I have been looking at all this since 1970, but could never quite get my
chops up as a mathematician, but I had a few friends who did.”

“As a result of your article I am now exploring Rovelli and Smolin
but, of course, I love the way you write and the clarity you bring
to difficult subjects. It should help me in my preparations to explain
the Big Board to 6th graders! Geometry, parameters, boundary
conditions, transformations and numbers: is there a simpler way?”

Thank you for all that you do.
Your work is all very much appreciated!




Hazewinkel, Michiel

Michiel Hazewinkel

Burg. s’Jacoblaan 18
1401 BR Bussum
The Netherlands

ArXiv: Symmetry vs Symmetry, Niceness theorems
Books: Algebraic and Geometric Methods in Nonlinear Control Theory

First email: 19 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Michiel Hazewinkel:

You are so right. The beautiful, the nice, the charming, and the simple need to become a formal study. Let’s take it on. Will you help me with the mathematics?

I am starting from a peculiar place, the Planck Base Units; and, I have applied base-2 so the universe is mapped in 202 notations:

1. The numbers: https://81018.com/chart
2. Discussion related to Dark Matter and Dark Energy: https://81018.com/dark/
3. A discussion related to the first 64 notations: https://81018.com/64-notations/
4. It has a very humble history: https://81018.com/home/

Could I interest you? It could mess up your rather brilliant reputation!


Most sincerely,

Barish, Barry C.

Barry Clark Barish
Linde Professor of Physics Emeritus

California Institute of Technology,  Pasadena, California
UC Riverside
Director of the Global Design Effort, International Linear Collider

ArXiv: Search for gravitational waves from a long-lived remnant of the binary neutron star merger GW170817 (October 2018)
Nobel Prize 2017
Twitter (Nobel Prize)

From 2physics.com: “5 Needed Breakthroughs”

  1. Understanding what is the dark energy in the universe? (We don’t even have a good idea here.)
  2. What is the dark matter? (This is the other big unknown, but at least we have some handles. We know it is non-baryonic and evidence points to either supersymmetric particles, or maybe axions. Perhaps it is neither.)
  3. What causes mass? (We have a very successful theory of particle physics, but the particles are massless. We need to understand the source of mass. The leading idea is that it is the Higgs mechanism, and we need to see if there is a Higgs particle or variant to make the next step. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN should answer this question.)
  4. Is the neutrino its own antiparticle? (This is a puzzle going back to Fermi and perhaps the next generation of experiments will resolve it by looking for neutrino-less double beta decay.)
  5. Is there ultimate unification of the forces of nature? (This is a long term intriguing simplification on our understanding of particles and fields, but present data does not support it. However, if there is a new symmetry in nature (supersymmetry) it could bring this unification.)
First email: 19 October 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Barry C. Barish:

To begin to get a modest understanding of your work, I have started my own page of references, along with a copy of this note: https://81018.com/2018/10/15/barish/

I found your work through a webpage from March 07, 2007 listing your five needed breakthroughs (just above). Although you might re-prioritize that list today, it seems that most respectable scientists would still agree with you just as it is.

We have just begun to address some of those questions. Although we have no pedigree, since December 2011 we have been studying an application of base-2 notation from the Planck base units to the age and size of the universe.

Such a simple concept renders rather surprising results:
• There are just over 202 doublings. Our working numbers: https://81018.com/chart/
• Too small to measure, the first 64 notations: https://81018.com/64-notations/
• We ask: Can this be where the answers to your questions are?
• The notations create a natural inflation: https://81018.com/ni/
• The first second emerges within the 143rd notation.
• The 202nd notation is 10.9816 billion years so we are just 2.8 billion years into it.

I thought you might find it all of interest. I don’t think it’s just poppycock… If it is, it seems we’ll have to re-examine the foundations of logic, mathematics, and integrity, and the concepts of continuity and symmetry?

Thank you.



Vilenkin, Alexander


Alexander Vilenkin
Director of the Institute of Cosmology
Tufts University (STEM)
Medford, Massachusetts

Articles: The Beginning of the Universe
ArXiv: Hessian eigenvalue distribution in a random Gaussian landscape
BooksMany Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes
CV  Google Scholar Homepage Twitter Wikipedia YouTube  

Most recent email: 11 February 2021 in the evening

Dear Prof. Dr. Alexander Vilenkin:

Long, long ago, I lived in Melrose, had in office in Somerville, and even had friends on the faculty and board of Tufts, but I have never visited the Institute of Cosmology. Might it be possible the next time I come to Boston? I have property in Bremen, Maine (out on the coast from Damariscota) so I come to town on occasion.

Though late in life to kindle an interest in cosmology, that path has been quite idiosyncratic.

When Stephen Hawking’s colleague and friend, Neil Turok said the big bang is wrong, it seemed that finally there would be a more robust search for an alternative theory. In my early research, I found the Cambridge University 1999 Structure Formation in the Universe conference. And, I see that you were there! It seems to be one of the first conferences to have all the key players and to ask, “Isn’t there a better theory?”

There has just been so much investment into the infinitely-hot big bang, it is hard to get the scholarly community to begin to engage other possible concepts. For example, Harvard’s David Layzer proposed testing Lemaitre’s 1927 cold start. Anthony Aguirre followed up, but nothing quite gelled. At about the same time Layzer was asking questions, Penzias-and-Wilson’s declarations about the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) gave the big bang’s in finitely-hot start a sense of substance and what followed is an arduous history.

At no time has anybody proposed that the universe begins with the Planck base units and that something like an infinitesimal “Planck Sphere” manifests. Taking the numbers as given by Max Planck, this infinitesimal thing has tremendous energy given Planck Charge and the “electromagnetic radiation” operating at the speed of light. It has extraordinary density given the mass/length ratios, and a remarkable expansion rate given Planck Time. On its face, that is 539 tredecillion spheres per second. Certainly it would seem to describe what some might call a big bang, yet these spheres are many orders of magnitude smaller than neutrinos. Perhaps these could be identified as dark energy and dark matter, even a new aether and the simple basis for homogeneity and isotropy.

In these days there are many articles with many co-authors. I have kept this draft of a future posting brief in hopes that people with your depth might take a look and suggest additions or-deletions. Might you take a look?

https://81018.com/instance/ Password: ArXiv Thank you.

Warm regards,


Second email: 16 January 2019 in the evening

You are all on this homepage and your individual pages
have also been updated:
Vilenkin: https://81018.com/2018/10/13/vilenkin/
Kiefer: https://81018.com/2018/09/20/kiefer/
Adler: https://81018.com/adler/


I look forward to your feedback. Thank you.


Second email: 16 January 2019 in the morning

“We live in the aftermath of a great explosion—the big bang—that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. At the time of the big bang, the universe was filled with a fireball, a dense mixture of energetic particles and radiation. For nearly a century, physicists have been studying how the fireball expanded and cooled, how particles combined to form atoms, and how galaxies and stars were gradually pulled together by gravity.” -AV, The Beginning of the Universe

Dear Prof. Dr. Alexander Vilenkin:

Thank you for your scholarship and the pursuit of intellectual integrity. Please excuse me if my questions seem in any way too direct or offensive:

  1. Is big bang cosmology still the best model?
  2. Isn’t Newton’s absolute space-and-time assumed, and is it the best model?
  3. Could there be a natural inflation from the Planck scale? The numbers using base-2 are interesting: https://81018.com/chart/
  4.  Could the thrust originate within the dimensionless constants, especially from light — https://81018.com/c/ and the Planck Charge? https://81018.com/thrust/

Thank you.
Most sincerely,

P.S. I write to scholars. I have also written about these four questions to Claus Keifer (Cologne) and Stephen Louis Adler (IAS) and all three of you are referenced on this homepage.

First email: Saturday, October 13, 2018

Dear Prof. Dr. Alexander Vilenkin:

In doing a survey this morning of your body of work, particularly the idea of quantum creation from a quantum vacuum, the mechanisms of symmetry breaking, phase transitions and topological defects ( and cosmic strings), I know you will think that what we are doing is just foolishness. It all started back in a New Orleans high school, so I would love somebody of your depth and breadth to get us back within the mainstream.

We just started out so naively, we’ve had to forge our own way.

We have five assumptions about this universe: (1) the Planck base units are the best numbers to begin a study of the universe, (2) Length-and-Time and Mass-and-Charge are the basic four concepts, (3) thrust is given within light, within the never-ending, never-repeating dimensionless constants that define those base units, and also within Planck Charge, (4) an infinitesimal sphere best describes the first manifestation of physicality and we call it a plancksphere, and (5) these units, the thrust, and the spheres become the mechanism for doublings.

Our summary of those statements is here: https://81018.com

We started with Zeno’s paradox and simple geometries and it got out of control over the years!

Might we hear from you?

Most sincerely,