TO: Janna Levin, Tow Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Barnard College of Columbia University, New York City
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Articles about your work in : Muck Rack, Wired (2016); articles in ArXiv (59) especially The Copernican Principle in Compact Spacetimes, J. D. Barrow, Janna Levin, DAMTP (2003); Nature abhors an infinity within Topology and the cosmic microwave background (PDF) (2001); even your
homepage(s); and books, Google Scholar, PioneerWorks, Twitter, Wikipedia; and inSPIREHEP (notice one of her scientific advisors was Katherine Freese)
Within this website: https://81018.com/levin/ (this page) https://81018.com/hypostasis/#References
https://81018.com/eoy-23/#IM
Third email: 19 December 2023
Dear Prof. Dr. Janna Levin:
I tweeted earlier today to @JannaLevin (automatically copied to your @templeton_fdn and @bigthink). I commented on your “Strict rules? Big bang cosmology? No. It’s flawed. We know it is flawed. Let’s start over at the Planck scale with its base units. Apply base-2 notation (exponential) and we have a more realistic model than the reigning theory. https://81018.com https://81018.com/chart/
I expect that those tweets generally fall through the cracks in the cosmic egg. The only reason science finds infinity abhorrent is they assume the wrong definitions of infinity. I say that we can only know infinity through the likes of of π (pi) where we learn about its continuity (order), symmetry (relations), and harmonies (dynamics). That’s from observing its practical application with its unending numbers and the testing of supercomputers, its generation of spheres, and its Fourier transform and great diversity of applications.
I talk further about it all within today’s homepage: https://81018.com The actual URL for that page is: https://81018.com/eoy-23/
Power to you!
Warmly,
Bruce
Second email, Tuesday, February 1, 2022
Dear Prof. Dr. Janna Levin:
Twenty-one years ago you released “Topology and the cosmic microwave background” (PDF) with the words, Nature abhors an infinity. It caused quite a stir. A bit of anthropomorphization, what is abhorrent is our ability to follow blindly as we all go into the abyss. Either we can ‘t understand nature and infinities, and the deepest nature of things or we throw in the towel too quickly. Why should we adopt Newton and an absolute sense of space and time? Not even a Kantian a priori — might the two be functionally derivative?
How so? What if our sense of the infinite has been so tainted by its histories, we have been become defensively wired and even at that, a bit too tightly, and we fail to see the most simple expressions of infinity. In our system of thinking, we look no further than pI (π). Three faces of infinite are quickly discovered: continuity, symmetry, and harmony. Not finite. Not quantitative, but each infinite and qualitative. Perhaps we can lighten up a bit.
Warmly,
Bruce
First Tweet, then Email: January 2014
Spectacular work. Great life. Congratulations.
Let’s take the another logical step forward.
My last night’s tweet to you, “Why struggle with a little Worldview when you can be working on an emerging Universe View and ethical bias.”
Your earlier work puts you in the challenger’s role!
Here’s a neophyte’s vision on finite-infinite!
Best wishes for your continued work,
Bruce
PS. I am just a nobody from nowhere special. You really have done it. You have the gifts,
real brilliance, to see the unseen.
###