###### • Center for Perfection Studies • The Big Board–Little Universe Project • New Orleans • USA • March 2017 •

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

## by Bruce CamberThe universe may not be as mysterious as the scientific and academic communities have made it all out to be. There is a very simple mathematical model of the universe that the academic community is unable or unwilling to debunk [1]. Either they do not know what to debunk, or they are afraid that they might be debunking a model that could be more true than false. On Monday, December 19, 2011, three classes of high school geometry students and two classes preparing to take the ACT (American College Testing) exams, focused on a simple exponential progression (using base-2) from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe [2]. That means they multiplied the Planck Length by 2 over and over and over again. Each new number created a new notation of a specific length creating a range between each. Our initial idea was to place anything with a measurable length into the notation closest insize. It would become our universe charted by length. The human egg was readily contained within notation 99. Sperm, a bit bigger, went into into notation 100. People emerged at 116. By 134th notation we were out to the International Space Station, between 206-to-270 miles away when it is overhead. But then, we were sure we did something wrong. Based on measurements from the Hubble Space telescope, we only had to multiply the results from the Planck Length just over 67 more times to get to the size of the observable universe.
We were dumbfounded to find nothing on the web about this continuity equation. The closest work was done in 1957 in Holland by a secondary school teacher, Kees Boeke.[4] His base-10 work was a real universe view, but he had only found 40 of the 63 possible notations. [5] He had no geometries and he did not start with the Planck units. Yet, that work gave us a little hope. Somebody else has been here. Still it took us three years to gain some confidence to feel that this path was not a dead end. In 2014 we added Planck Time.[6] In 2015, we added the other Planck base units.[7] When we began to see the epochs of big bang cosmology emerge within our numbers, we knew something important was happening. To make it easier to analyze the numbers, in April 2016 we initiated our horizontally-scrolled chart. Now we could readily see a natural inflation, especially within the first second of the life of this universe. We had a simple mathematical view of the universe. We could imagine that it just might be the simplest yet most comprehensive outline of the universe; it seemed worthy of further investigation! Yet, it was still too big a jump for all those people who have been schooled on big bang cosmology. Nobody said, “Let’s explore this further.” Yet, we did hear, “Idiosyncratic.” “Just a novelty.” Undaunted, we continued our explorations. Something was “right” about this work. It was simple. It was logical. It was mathematical. It included all time and all space. That’s not just simple, but elegant and yes, even beautiful. Over the years, we have emerged with four thrusts or directions of research. Continued next column… __________________________________________ |
## The universe opened up to us in four major ways:Our Four Faces Of The Universe **Numbers: Big Board-little universe**First, it was a simple, mathematically-consistent model of the known universe and an introduction to an unknown universe. That unknown universe began to open questions about big bang cosmogony-and-cosmology and about natural inflation.**Ratios: Space-Time**Space and time were uniquely defined by Max Planck; as that simple equation became the foundation of this new model, we began to see space and time was better defined by Gottfried Leibniz than by Isaac Newton; and that changed everything. Ratios fundamentally came alive.**Incommensurables: Finite-Infinite**We imbibed a very deep continuity throughout the universe and we imputed commensurate symmetries; and, we have begun to see how the two must be the very nature of infinity. These two qualities, expressed in exacting quantities, open bridges to the finite through equations represented by all the never-ending, never-repeating numbers.
**Foundations: The First 67 Notations**Planck Time and Planck Length are so infinitesimally small, even by multiplying each by 2 over and over again, Planck Length remains enigmatic until the 67th notation.
## Endnotes and Questions:[1] The Chart of Planck Base Units Extended Through Base-2 Notation. All our charts are still very early developments. The horizontally-scrolled chart is out most comprehensive to date. [4] In March 2012, an article prepared for Wikipedia opened a pointed discussion with scholars who claimed it was “original research” and that it had not been done before now. The similarities with Kees Boeke’s scientific notation and scale of the universe were interesting as a way to understand , just on its face, an integrated universe view. [5] Also in March 2012, base-2 and base-10 are compared. [6] In December 2014 Planck Time was added to the chart. Here for the first time we began to engage the concept that it would take 144 notations for the universe to become one second old. [7] In February 2015 the other Planck base units were added to the chart . A decision was made to put the Planck Temperature one notation higher than the current time and divide by 2 back to the Planck Length and Planck Time. In other words, we would put it on hold believing that everything starts simply. You can be sure that all the intricacies of scientific fact and mathematics from Einstein’s relativity through Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics and Rovelli’s quantum gravity, have a connection along this grid and probably within the first second of creation. We’ll slowly discern how it is that the prior statement is true. -BEC
- views and beliefs
- misplaced concreteness
- derivative, discrete, finite, local, quantized, and relational.
*Reality Is Not What It Seems* - Richard A. Muller
,*Now**The Physics of Time*
___________________________________________________________________ |