CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.June 2017
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|KEYS|Map|REVIEW|Transformation|UP
How did we get here?
|History: Throughout our recorded history, we all take sides. Often unwittingly we commit to an idea, and then it becomes us versus them. Yet, most often there are elements of truth on both sides. Science, particularly cosmology, is no different. There are winning teams and losing teams.In the early part of 1970s, the two prevailing models of the universe were the Big Bang theory (with roots back to 1927, Georges Lemaître and 1939, George Gamow) and the Steady State theory with its roots deep within Cambridge University in 1948 to Hermann Bondi (Trinity), Thomas Gold (Cavendish) and Fred Hoyle (Institute for Astronomy). By the late 1970s the big bang theory began commanding more attention. By the early 1990s, it was dominant, and then it became abundantly confident.
Yet, there have remained unanswered questions. And, over time, it now seems that neither side was totally right. Yet, though both captured some element of the truth, a better model is needed.
|The naïveté of high school. Many of our readers know about our work. Beginning in December 2011 we backed into a very simple, mathematical model of the universe from within our high school geometry classes. Though unlikely to be a comprehensive model, anything is possible.
Idiosyncratic and very simple. This model emerged from studying embedded geometries (tetrahedrons and octahedrons), base-2 exponentiation, Zeno’s paradoxes, and the Planck units. The result — there are just over 202 doublings — base-2 exponential notations from the Planck units to the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe. Here is the power of 2. The first second of creation is between notations 143 and 144. The next 58 notations bring us up to this present day, current hour, and this very second.
This simple mathematical model is a scripting program for the big bang, but, the starting point is the opposite of “infinitely dense” and “infinitely hot.” This model starts with the infinitesimal Planck Time and Planck Length as well as Planck Mass and Planck Charge. Each doubling of these four Planck units, notation after notation, defines all the phenomena of the big bang theory except there is no bang per se. It defines a natural inflation. It is 100% predictive. It outlines the cosmological epochs more pointedly than the big bang theory. It mimics cellular reproduction. It includes everything for all time and in all space. Simple, elegant, comprehensive, it is a basic mathematical platform that can readily incorporate and support all other mathematics.
But then, it does so much more. It opens up possibilities and probabilities. While still infinitesimal, it creates space for philosophies (even ethics), and the mind (even sleep). It gives homogeneity and isotropy a platform. It also gives dark matter and dark energy a foundation. And, most importantly, it redefines the infinite in ways that might open dialogues about universals and constants, the ultimate and eternal, first within the sciences, then between science and philosophy, then between science and religion, and maybe even between different religions.
Why didn’t the academics and scholars find this simple little model?
Planck Units: In the six years from conception to publishing, 1899-1905, Max Planck worked with five universal physical constants to define an essential reality and base platform for measurement. The result was four Planck base units: Planck Time, Planck Length, Planck Mass and Planck Charge that were “…properties of nature and not from any human construct.” Although engaged by many over time, the Planck numbers did not command basic respect across the entire scientific community. Not until 2001 when Frank Wilczek (MIT, Nobel laureate 2004) wrote a series of three articles for Physics Today, Scaling Mt. Planck, did I, II, III, these Planck units begin to move beyond numerology into wide-scale acceptability.
By that time, the big bang theory had gained the high ground. Nobody thought to follow simple nested or combinatorial geometries back to the Planck Length. Nobody thought to multiply the Planck units by 2. It took a huge amount of naïveté and almost no knowledge of cosmological models to bias one’s point of view. It also required attempt to discount our commonsense view promulgated by Isaac Newton that space and time are absolute and to begin to adopt a relational model as suggested in 1715 by Leibniz.
Today, there are three simultaneous research projects to define this model more completely:
• Measuring an Expanding Universe Using Planck Units (work in progress)
• The Thrust of the Universe: What is it? (work in progress)
• Visualizing the Universe (work in progress)
We invite your comments and questions about our simple, highly-integrated, mathematical model of the Universe.
Thank you. – Bruce Camber
Let’s talk and let’s get to work!
• Revisit. June 5, 2017, Burst the Big Bang Bubble
• Contact! June 2, 2017, Email to the Editors of scientific publications
• Contact! 1 June 2017: Email to Max Tegmark (MIT), re. the nature of infinity in light of his article, The Mathematical Universe
• Contact! 4 May 2017: Email to Brandon Brown, author, Planck: Driven by Vision, Broken by War
• Open Letter to the editors of Science (magazine) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
• An Integrated Universe View: What is your expertise? There are many blanks within many cells — over 2000 of them in the entire chart — so, we assume it will always be “under construction.”
• Background: Do you have a Worldview? Could it be part of an integrated Universe View?
• NASA SpaceApp Challenge Reports (work in progress)
• Very Small-Scale Universe: What is hypostatic?
Homepages: NASA Report|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|Original
June 12, 2017: We believe the big bang backfired and that it is breaking up.
June 13, 2017: We’ve put the big bang on ice to explore a simple model of the universe
June 20: Put the big bang on ice so we can explore a more simple model of the universe.