###### CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY • USA • GOALS • September 2018

HOMEPAGES: **JUST PRIOR|2**|**3**| **4**|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|PI|20|21|ORIGINAL

72 OF 202: GRID OF EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE FOR ALL TIME – NOT A THEORY OR VISION – JUST MATH.

# Please consider analyzing one notation

or any group of the 202 notations.

##### by Bruce Camber **REFERENCED HOMEPAGE: “THE ESSENTIAL UNIVERSE”** Problems Future

That’s true, but we ask, “Is it meaningful?” Yes, this chart of the universe linked just above is 100% predictive and a natural inflation from the first instant within space-time to today’s current expansion of the universe. It has a simple logic and simple math and the progression of 202.34 doublings mimics all but the first three epochs defined by the Big Bang theorists… but so what?

Going all the way back to the 1975 Ellis-Hawking monograph^{1}, there have been well-known problems within big bang cosmology, but there has been no known viable alternative. It is assumed here that part of the problem is that there are limited mathematical and scientific definitions of the finite-infinite relation; and, our understanding of space-time-light, even today, is still limited.

Between 1899 and 1905, a different basic structure for space, time and light was defined by Max Planck (Nobel, 1918). Those calculations were ignored until 2001 when Frank Wilczek (MIT, Nobel 2004) began writing about them in *Physics Today*; and, as a result, Planck’s units became more than the personal numerology of a formative thinker from long ago.

**Planck units have a mathematical and logical structure**. When base-2 is applied, real numbers can be examined within each of the 202 notations that outline the universe from the very first moment to the current expansion of the universe. These numbers need to be critically examined by scholars in every discipline touched by those 202 notations or doublings.

**Such a model just could be an alternative theory to big bang cosmology**.

To test its viability will require addressing our fundamental understanding of space and time going back to Newton. Since Hawking’s death, the divisions among scholars have been accentuated. If this model of the universe based on Planck’s numbers begins to get traction, many scientists and scholars will need special help to begin to embrace it. This model, although simple, is radically different.

**The next chapter and challenge**

Since 2012 scholars, especially within physics and mathematics, from around the world have been contacted (small sampling) and introduced to these charts of numbers. To go forward, we will approach several of those scholars (and their teams) to look at one or more notations and to analyze the numbers in each notation as robustly as possible. An infrastructure for such work is already within these pages of the current website:

(1) https://81018.com/chart/

(2) https://81018.com/1-202/

Initially six groups of numbers were analyzed, 31, 67, 101, 137, 167 and 199. All prime numbers, that study stretched and pulled us in unexpected ways. We decided to start at the beginning, notations 1-10 out of the entire 202. That resulted in many homepages and speculations. The entire group of notations below the 67th were especially challenging. That we needed some help has always been entirely self-evident to us.

**Notations 1-202**

**Infinity to Notation #1**. Scholars within philosophy and theology from around the world have also been introduced to our simple model. It generally overwhelms the non-scientist. Here this study will be repositioned as a finite-infinite research program whereby the old theologies of perfection are explored using scientific concepts like continuity, symmetry and harmony as possible replacements for absolute space and time. Process philosophy and theology will be a focus, but all approaches with a scientific nuance must be considered. The focus will be on the finite-infinite conversion and there are many of our webpages that have started to address this issue:

(1) https://81018.com/emergence/

(2) https://81018.com/growth/

(3) https://81018.com/number/#Kepler

(4) https://81018.com/a1/

**Notations 1-64**. The first 64 notations, although strictly mathematical, will require the assistance of logicians, ontologists, and very select groups of mathematicians. We are communicating with those with pointfree geometry studies, Langlands programs, and binary operations. A select group of philosophers out of the tradition of Whitehead and process studies have also been approached. And, the work of special groups of mathematical physicists within scalar field studies, computer automaton, and fractal studies are currently being studied.

**Notations 64 to 84**. Scholars within the transition from particle physics “to something more basic” are attempting to discern new paradigms. We have been in touch with many of them through their online work, especially the most recent postings within ArXiv. These key people we believe are defining the notations from about 64 to 67. However, notations up to the first measurements of a unit in time at notation 84 are included.

Within such a radically new orientation, we believe many problems can be understood in new ways and a physics with a new twist just might emerge.

**Notation 84 to 202**. In 2011 and in 2012 this work was initiated quite naively within a high school geometry class. It was further tested in a sixth grade AP class for math and science. The children not only got it, they were enthusiastic. Here was a STEM tool that gave them access to the entire universe in an orderly fashion. Part of our work will be to continue testing and developing materials that can be used in middle and secondary schools to provide a view of the universe that is ordered, has deep symmetries and explains the discontinuities and asymmetries (quantum physics) through simple geometries. There are three pages that describe this further:

(1) https://81018.com/home/

(2) https://81018.com/tot/

(3) https://81018.com/2014/12/01/door/

**Notations 1-202**. Can it work within all of the religious traditions and even among the atheists? We have communicated with theologians of every major religious expression and with many of the evangelical atheists. We will continue to test the core concepts that seem to be coming out of this new model so the exegetical and homiletical inputs of the religious can be processed within this research and the philosophical orientation of atheists can have a safe harbor.

Our success will be measured by a change of understanding of ourselves and our universe which begets a new sense of toleration and openness.

**Problems, problems everywhere**

Everybody has problems, many seem insurmountable, and the divisions are very real.

Our job as prescient human beings is to become problem solvers:

(1) Question everything.

(2) Look for a deeper logic.

(3) Re-learn the basics.

(4) Don’t stop until we have something compelling.

I have summarized that vision here: https://81018.com/problems

We are so close in so many fields, but what if the *infinitely-hot, infinitely dense* big bang is the wrong orientation and clouds our vision? We already know that there are many concepts that are not an easy to “force-fit” into the big bang cosmology. We also know that the big bang ignores the Planck base units. It has nothing to say about the dimensionless constants. Though helpful within the Standard Models, there is a huge jump back to the Planck Epoch from the Quark-gluon epoch in cosmology when in fact it is a the smallest-possible jump.

Those first three epochs are the only difference between these two models of the universe and those epochs account for less than a picosecond. For more:

(1) https://81018.com/calculations

(2) https://81018.com/2016/06/01/quiet/

Mathematics struggles, and has struggled, with the finite-infinite relation for as long as there has been mathematics and a record of that history. In the current discussions about the infinite, there is no special role or place for pi or for prime numbers. It has little to do with the dimensionless constants. That will all change as a result of this model moving into the discussions within the main tents of academia. For more: https://81018.com/functions/

**Endnotes, foonotes, references…**

^{1} The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, S. W. Hawking, G. F. R. Ellis, Cambridge, 1975

Related pages: (1) Publishers (2) Essential Universe (3) Calculations

**Your Review:**

## Editor’s Notes about Navigation and Other Points of Interest:

**Navigation**: Scroll to the top of the page. Cursor over the word HOME and a very long drop down menu will be displayed. It can be scrolled. There is a link to every homepage within this site from its beginning in September 2016.**Homepage**. Click on**Our Universe in 202+ Doublings**to go to the*current*homepage.**That second header contains links to the past 25 homepages**. “Just Prior” always goes to the most recent, then each number is active to the next prior homepage. The image goes to the horizontally-scrolled chart as does its tagline.**Values and ethics**: Universals and constants give rise to a sense of value that gives rise to values and ethics. The antithesis is nihilism which opens dystopia.

**The current struggle**: Who will lead us? Who can break the impasse?

*Might the seven First Ladies of oldest trade routes of our world break the impasse?*

## ________________

## More key evocative questions:

Back in my very early days at Synectics Education Systems (1971- ), in the days of metaphors and analogies, one of the most important activities was trying to engage key evocative questions. Here are a few of those questions explored within this site:

**What are the fundamental units without which we would not have our universe?****Does each progression represent a “longest possible” continuum?****Are any big bang theories necessary in light of a natural inflation?****Is our intellectual depth being constricted by our two Standard Models?****Shall we revisit our structure for scientific revolutions?****Can these concepts be tested using rather simple formulas?****Does measurement qua measurement actually begin with pure math and logic?****Is “infinitely-hot, infinitely-dense, infinitely-small” the wrong place to start?****What is the deep nature of growth?****Are our imaginations working overtime?****What is an inertial frame of reference in light of 202 notations?****Are some concepts first principles”?****Can Turok, Arkani-Hamed or Tegmark open a new frame of reference?****What is pi that we are mindful of it?****Ask the penultimate questions: What is finite? What is infinite?****Are we asking enough “what if” questions?****Who is on our team? To whom do we turn?****What has been the driving vision?****What is the fabric of the universe?****Are there rules for our roads? What are they?****Is the universe exponential? Is Euler’s identity spot on?****Is this model built on something even faster than exascale computing?****Does the universe go on forever or just as far as the current expansion?****Is there a better way to keep track of all these writings?****Who among us is really and truly in a dialogue with the universe?****Why? Then as a child, ask the question again, Why? And again, ask, “Why?”****Have there been summaries of these ideas? What have we missed?****Are the 202 doublings still a virtually unexplored area for research?****The arrogance of language: How do we know what we know and don’t know?****What are the most important qualities of infinity?****Does the original homepage (January 2012) anticipate the future?**

An excellent resource to translate any of our pages by its URL:

http://itools.com/tool/google-translate-web-page-translator

*If you liked this page and website, please do not hesitate to follow us on Twitter or Linkedin. *

Our visitors come from many countries (a snapshot on August 24, 2018)