# Not the universe… this little project!

###### by Bruce E, Camber

In 2011 for fun, our high school geometry class built the three-tiered tetrahedron pictured on the right. On paper we continued going inside. In forty steps we were within the range of a fermion. Within the next 67 steps, we were in the range of the Planck Length. We went the other way, multiplying by 2. In less than another 100 notations, we were out to the Age of the Universe . At that time we didn’t know about Kees Boeke’s 1957 base-10 work. He had just 40 steps (he called them jumps) by adding or subtracting zeroes. Our model has all the simplicity and naturalness of base-2; it also has an inherent geometry and those Planck base units. Then, we began discovering so much more.

We made our initial chart (lower right) and then asked, “What does this mean? Can we do anything with it?” Our first answer was, “It is an excellent STEM tool! It shows us the order of Science, the roles of Technology and Engineering, and the importance of Mathematics.” We wrote it up for Wikipedia.

Yet, when we couldn’t find the model on the web, we were puzzled. It all seemed so simple and self-evident. Eventually we found the 1957 work of Kees Boeke who did a chart using base-10. We were excited to see how enormously popular it had become. Our work was more 3.333+ times granular; it started with geometries, and employed the Planck scale to have an endpoint on the “small” side and the Age of the Universe to have an endpoint on the “large” size. Very quickly, we began to get accustomed to very, very small numbers and very, very large numbers.

We still thought there was something more to this model than a simple STEM tool. We continued thinking and working.

We talked with other teachers. We asked local professors. Then we started writing to some of the best scientists in the world, people like Freeman Dyson and Frank Wilczek. We were encouraged to continue our explorations and no one said, “Stupid idea! Wrong-headed conceptual logic.”

So, we began to think it was time to seek larger and yet more particular audience. We’ve tried to have some articles published.[1][2][3]  No, we have a lot to learn in that department and now understand the feeling of rejection!

So, what do you think?

It seems obvious that science is missing a few key links. Perhaps we all got hung up with Sir Isaac Newton’s absolute space and time. Our fledgling model looks like it would side with Gottfried Leibniz within the historic debate between the two. Even still, when we follow the simple mathematics and logic out to the necessary results, it all begins to boggle the mind.

We would love to hear from you!