References within this website:
• Squishy or quantum geometries on an idealized Euclidean base, 2022
• New ideas that become key concepts usually start as a simple idea.
Third and most recent email: June 26, 2022 at 3:50 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Jorge Pullin:
Back about seven years ago I sent an email (below) and you answered with most insightful suggestions. So much has happened since that time. First, this work now has its own website — https://81018.com — and we’ve discovered so many interesting details about our universe and scholarship. Did you know that Aristotle made a mistake that was repeated as fact for over 1800 years. I became aware of it in 2016 while wrestling to prioritize our most basic numbers. More recently, I associated it with discussions about quantum fluctuations. If the 202 notations are taken as a dynamic container of the universe, time is redefined. When we re-engage pi (π), the concept of infinity was redefined. We began thinking that it was the penultimate STEM tool! New ways of engaging old concepts were coming so fast, I made a list of them and prioritized them.
If you recall, part of our family is down in New Orleans and we will be there for family parties on July 3. Our cousins who were the LSU cheerleaders (Hank and Shawn Mills) are there in Baton Rouge and we will be visiting with them on July 4. Others in the family are in the Alexandria area and they are expecting us when we get there! If y’all have any time to meet and greet, my wife would be happy to take that time with me to come by. Thank you.
Bruce E. Camber
Second email: March 27, 2015, 2:39 PM
You are a saint to have taken a look. Not only did you look, but you contemplated and reflected. Wonderful. Your advice to create a short summary will be one. Your advice on the scales PDF has been engaged. I should also report:
1. We were having fun learning about basic nested or embedded geometries.
2. Were still mystified with our base-2 scale of the universe.
3. The small scale heretofore had been ignored because it was just too small and meaningless for the sciences. Enter Wilczek. Enter Penrose. Enter Planck. Enter Bohr. We are in part of the universe that has been called the matrix, aether, grid and continuum but none had a structure or pre-structure. We might have a structure (pointfree geometries), numbers, sequences, and parameters (Planck Units). Yet, so what? So, we began guessing.
4. It qualifies for ontological non-reducibility.
5. It seems to be the place where space and time begin to get their definition. The closer to the singularity of the Planck Units, the closer we are to something from which both are derived. Perhaps continuity and symmetry?
That’s a bit of a non-sense guess. Is it crazy enough to have an iota of truth?
Essentially our human scale and large scale are wonderful indexes to order information naturally by a particular Planck Unit. It is an excellent STEM tool. That small scale holds the mystery and the greatest possibilities for discovery… I think. But… I’m probably wrong!
Thank you for your kind considerations.
First email: March 27, 2015, 12:56 PM
Dear Prof. Dr. Jorge Pullin:
You can blame your ever-so-inviting writing for stimulating this note to you!
I need some help to debunk some work we started a few years ago at a high school just down river from you in a little unincorporated hamlet just north of New Orleans and south of the airport, River Ridge. We need to debunk our 202 notations that start with the Planck Units, scale the universe by applying base-2 exponential notation.
By the way, given LSU’s football reputation, you may know this school’s reputation in football. Also, I took my first drive through the LSU campus last weekend after the wedding of a niece whose parents were both LSU cheerleaders! We moved here in 2009 from California (I’m from Boston) to slow down and rethink our directions. We had been producing a weekly, half-hour show about best business practices that aired for 14 years on PBS-stations around the USA and on the Voice of America-TV around the world. It is still in reruns on a few stations!
A few years ago, I was asked to help out my nephew, the geometry teacher, baseball coach and linebacker coach, and I was happy to do so. Now, my affections for geometry were widely known within the family, and we had a “successful” first encounter with five math classes (mostly geometry). We all had some fun exploring the basic platonic solids and I thought I was done. A few months later they asked me back again and that is when we began exploring embedded geometries, then the edges of combinatorics, Wolfram’s cellular automaton, and anything else I could add to fill the time in a meaningful way. It wasn’t too far into it all that we had developed a Big Board of our little universe using base-2 exponential notation from the Planck Units to the Observable Universe. It seemed like a good STEM tool, but the very small-scale universe has us somewhat concerned.
What are we doing wrong? It is so idiosyncratic and out of step with current models. If you could help me debunk the process, I could get back to my business and the kids back to football and baseball. Yes, what are we doing wrong? What are we failing to grasp?
I will be deeply indebted if you can help. Thank you.
Bruce E. Camber