On November 4, 2019 distinguished astrophysicist, Joseph Silk, and his two colleagues, Eleonora Di Valentino and Alessandro Melchiorri (corresponding author), published *Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology.* It is the result of their ongoing analysis of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), mapped by the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Planck satellite. The Silk-diValentino-Melchiorri (SdVM) team looked at the data and concluded, “The Universe May Be A Closed System.” They said:

“

Planck cosmic microwave background spectra now preferring a positive curvature at more than the 99% confidence level. Here, we further investigate the evidence for a closed Universe from Planck, showing that positive curvature naturally explains the anomalous lensing amplitude, and demonstrating that it also removes a well-known tension in the Planck[ESA]dataset concerning the values of cosmological parameters derived at different angular scales.“ arXiv:1911.02087 (my emphasis)

Those keywords, *a closed universe*, were difficult to grasp. A flurry of articles quickly followed, however, nobody else would be analyzing that article in light of our emerging, rather simple model of the universe. Introduced in December 2011, our base-2 exponential model actually does mathematically encapsulate this entire universe within just **202** notations.

Newton and Leibniz did not have the advantage of Leonhard Euler’s work in the 1740s when he first introduced exponentiation to our understanding of the functions of the universe. Nor did they have the advantage of Max Planck’s work in 1899 when he made his calculations that became known as the Planck base units.

My simple hope is that the SdVM observations and conclusions create a real debate that heats up, and eventually that debate becomes a definitive rip in the fabric of *absolute* space and time. Can we grasp and define the differences between (1) an interval of time, (2) the arrow of time, (3).the flow of time, and (4) the very nature of time?

As a result of this article, we will begin a bit more formal analysis of CMBR. Also, just now, I sent a note to a friend saying, “I believe that most of the confusion within astrophysics today is our understanding of space and time. Those 202 notations are not recognized or understood. People do not know from which notation they are measuring values. We’ll help them discern it, by giving them the speed of light at each notation perhaps within a femtometer so when they start to separate out all the redshift more accurately by gauging it against that particular notation’s speed of light (given that most notations have unique light signatures — line 10 in the chart). Yes, yes, yes I am *vaguely* aware of the far-reaching implications and simplifications of our universe.

CMB Anisotropies and the Determination of Cosmological Parameters, **Efstathiou**, G (ArXiv)

*Quintessence and Cosmic Acceleration*, **Steinhardt**, Paul J. (**PDF**)

Exotica in the universe — dark matter, early black hole seeding, the first stars, cosmic microwave background radiation) CMBR, Priyamvada Natarajan

Measuring the Inflaton Coupling in the CMB, **Marco Drewes**, UC Louvain, Origins – Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe (BAU) (2nd, Summary, PDF) ArXiv (62)

PS. What’s in a name? Several have commented that my name seems to inculcate physics. Since 1965, I often use my initials, BEC, and did so especially in my undergraduate days. Of course, some have associated it with the Bose-Einstein Condensate. Of course within that compression of BEC, all the vowels are the first to be squeezed out and that camber no lift and becomes CMBR.