**Alex Berezow**, Senior Editor

Big Think

Freethink Media Inc, 626 E St NW Suite 200, Washington, DC 20004-2203

Article(s): “How I Became A Junk Science Debunker“, American Council on Science and Health, *February 12, 2020**The hardest question ever asked: What is truth?*, Alex Berezow, Editor, Big Think, *April 27, 2021***Homepage**(s): Big Think, Your Own Work

LinkedIn**Twitter**

References within this website:

https://81018.com/almost/#Big

Most recent email: 14 January 2022 @ 4:32 PM

Hi Alex,

It would be good to have Big Think debunk our little universe view that started in a high school in 2011: https://81018.com/home/ It has all kinds of problems but we’re not sure how to resolve. Here are our numbers: https://81018.com/chart/

That’s essentially the four Planck base units extended in 202 notations from the first instance of time to the current time.

It is kind of neat to have the entire universe, all 13.81 billion years, indexed and mathematically-integrated on a single board. But, so what if it lacks scientific integrity? How did math and science become so divergent?

BTW, I have written before and those notes are here: https://81018.com/berezow/

Be well.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

PS. Did you have a chance to look at that page addressing Hilbert’s infinity: https://81018.com/almost/ Here’s a sequel: https://81018.com/particle/ Thanks. -BEC

Second email and tweet: December 10, 2021 @ 12:32 PM

**@AlexBerezow** You may want to take a look at my page of references to you and Big Think: https://81018.com/berezow/ I can quickly add, change, or delete if there is anything needed. -Bruce

**Email**: Of course, that page — https://81018.com/almost/ — will never be finished yet you might be pleased to see that your article about truth is a primary reference within that page: https://81018.com/almost/#Big

Also, because I’m 74 and nothing quite sticks as well as it should, I write notes that become my reference page about a scholar’s work. My reference page to you is: https://81018.com/berezow/

Specious thinking? I don’t know. It is certainly simple and John Wheeler, among many, always advocated for the simple.

Your defenestration or celebration would be welcomed!

Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

First email: December 2, 2021, 12:22 PM

Hi Alex:

Our work started in December 2011 in a New Orleans high school geometry class. We went inside a tetrahedron: https://81018.com/tot/ It was easy to divide the edges by 2 and see a smaller tetrahedron in each corner and an octahedron in the middle. We divided by 2 again. Of course, we were getting the same configuration, just smaller units in each of the four tetrahedrons, but that octahedron was a surprise: eight smaller tetrahedra, one in each face and a smaller octahedron in each of the six corners.

Then, we got crazy. We got the Zeno bug and kept going. Within 45 steps we were around the size of the measurements at CERN labs — “particles” everywhere! Then rather haphazardly, we went the next 67 steps to the Planck scale.

That progression got most interesting when we started counting the embedded tetrahedrons and octahedrons. As the kids say, “Gazillions!”

We decided to use Max Planck’s numbers for length, time, mass and charge to recalibrate and return the 112 steps to our desktop and then another 90 steps to the size and age of the universe. We declared, “What a model! What a STEM tool.”

But, when we tried finding it on the web, we only found Kees Boeke’s base-10 work from 1957. I then re-discovered my old professor friends, Phil and Phylis Morrison’s book, *The Powers of Ten*. Great fun, the savants and scholars including Frank Wilczek and Freeman Dyson, encouraged our explorations, but nobody (among so many) was willing to tell us why it wasn’t a good model that could be applied to anything. I found that a bit curious so I laid those numbers out in a chart to see what we could see: https://81018.com/chart/

I am working on this interpretation: https://81018.com/almost/

Would you please help us debunk the whole thing? We are becoming too idiosyncratic to go on like this!

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

_____