Scholars, scientists and other thought leaders

Center for Perfection Studies The Big Board–Little Universe Project New Orleans • USA • April 19, 2017 •
Homepages: Just Prior  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19| Original

We reach out to many people in search of a critical review of this work.

We recognize that it is difficult for people to take time to rethink the way they see themselves, space and time, our world, and this universe. Those who do not have a mathematically-integrated view of the universe are often quick to discount our nascent model; and as a result, they discount the continuity equation, natural inflation, and symmetry functions that are so self-evident and totally define it.

Notwithstanding, we simply refuse to give up.

Because big bang cosmology is so central, like a prime mover, in science today, we started at the top of that group.  Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde have received email and tweets from us, all a simple introduction with simple questions. Essentially we ask, “What is wrong with this work?”

Because we started with the Planck base units, we reached out to experts on Planck and his calculations from 1899.  Among the these people were Frank Wilczek (MIT), Freeman Dyson (IAS-Princeton), Joe Kolecki (a retired NASA scientist), Jean-Pierre Luminet (a French astrophysicist), and Roger Penrose (Oxford scholar).

Obviously, we have many people to thank. Our list since December 2011 is substantial.

We’ll contact anyone.  Many never respond. Yet even they provide  a strange kind of validation. These are people who have been quickly introduced to our work. They are very smart and understand the deep problems within physics, yet they have not quickly discounted our work. Perhaps they consider it beneath them or a waste of time. Of all these people, even among the Nobel laureates, the directors of major research labs like CERN in Geneva, and scholars with hundreds of paper and books to their credit, all brilliant people, none had ever considered base-2 notation from the Planck units to the Age of the Universe.

Today, the only articles are those we have written since December 2011 when we began this effort.

So, we are eager to engage anyone, especially those who might encourage our thinking or provide critical insights as to why we are in error.  We will continue to report.  Across the spectrum of people to whom we reach out, it seems that there are four general categories within which people find their identity:

Today, there may not be many people listed within some of these categories. That will change. These lists will now all grow and change most every day.

We have a sense of urgency. We have been actively trying to figure out this model since December 2011. If there is more right than wrong, we will have made our contribution.  If our questions and its simplicity cause us all to get on a better path, that will be good enough.

The work and talent of everybody we reach out to will be linked to their primary websites and overviews. We will only post their responses when encouraged to do so by the writer/scholar. We will also eventually index all of our communications by name and by other key associations.

What drives us? Simple math, simple logic, and faith that continuity and symmetry are fundamental backbones of rationality, science, and good psychology, and a way to understand the faces of infinity.

 

Homepages: Just Prior  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19| Original