A Much More Simple Model – New from Old

by Bruce Camber  December 31, 2019  V.1 V.2  V.3

An unlikely approach to consciousness, sleep,
and basic questions

The finite-infinite relation has been consistently-and-badly abused by people throughout the millennia. The concept of infinity was the key problem so mathematically rigorous “work-arounds“ were developed to avoid it altogether. Back in 1970, I thought infinity could be defined as: (1)_continuity (renders order), (2)_symmetry (renders relations), (3)_harmony (renders dynamics). My studies of scientific anomalies and quantum fluctuations, opened questions about possible transformations between the finite and infinite. My hypothesis was, that if taken together, the three would necessarily define a moment of perfection.

Yet, with no framework, those concepts were just a feel-good, “holiday-collection” of words.

In 2011, by applying base-2 exponentiation starting at the Planck base units, we discovered 202 notations or doublings to encapsulate the finite universe, everything, everywhere, for all time. Finally… a framework! There were several continua defined that appeared to open new insights into some of our most basic questions.

New academic insights are difficult, yet when one begins to grasp these continua, the largest possible for space-time and matter-energy, exploring new possibilities is easier.
Continued (entire article)…
Caution…a working, first-draft.

Restrained Response

We started our base-2 work back in December 2011. A simple mathematical model, it appeared to have been unexplored by the academic community so we began asking some key scholars our key question:

“…just simple math and logic but the results are so idiosyncratic. What are we doing wrong?”

Of scholars who challenge basic assumptions about space and time, Nima Arkani-Hamed, can be difficult to understand yet his work is highly-regarded among academics.

Nima, Neil Turok and Max Tegmark challenge us all yet absolute space and time (Newton) seems be to holding its ground.

We began looking at the next generation of scholars who might question Newton’s absolutes. People like Mansoora Shamin have been boldly speculative.

Scholars like Katherine Freese of U.Texas-Austin have key insights but she appears to hold onto Newton’s absolutes. Simple is never simple.

Tweet to Neil deGrasse Tyson

Jan 11, 2020 @neiltyson Can we call to question Newton’s absolute space and time? Maybe so. If Planck’s base units are taken to be the very first moment of physical time, there are no absolutes: https://81018.com/eight-one It’s all finite and quantitative. A simple model: https://81018.com/chart/

Open up your universe

• First, simple numbers come first. Grasp the wheat and chessboard.
• Second, engage the logic; necessarily, there is a finite-infinite passageway.
• Third, Lighten up your life! We can all grasp a new space-time.
• Fourth, know these two faces of light: matter-energy (and you).
• Fifth, no dark matter and dark energy – it’s a continuum.

Basic concepts and simple facts

• Speed of light mathematically defined. So, what is the nature of light?
• Our base-2 exponential model (goes to a little history). Mathematically-
  integrated universe in just 202 notations (the actual numbers).
• Absolutes go back in the box.
• Sphere stacking, tetrahedrons, and octahedrons come out of the box.

__________________________________________

Key studies with this site:

• Planck Time to this day
• Newton, Leibniz, Finite-Infinite
• Key missing pieces of our puzzle
• A Map of the Universe
• Mathematical Model of the Universe
• We’ve been “top down” too long.
• The Most-Basic Transformations
• Integrated Structure of the Universe
• Key assumptions about this universe

_____________________________________