Michael J. Shelley, Co-Director, Applied Mathematics Laboratory, NYU, NYC
Center for Computational Biology, Flatiron Institute, Simons Foundation, NYC
ArXiv, Google Scholar
Homepage(s): NYU (Engineering), Simons, Wikipedia, YouTube
Second email: 22 February 2024 (updated)
Dear Prof. Dr. Michael J. Shelley:
Our page about your work – https://81018.com/shelley/ — includes my first note. The fact is that too many of our geometers are unaware of the four hexagonal plates that exist in every octahedron. Even John Horton Conway appreciated learning about them. In 2001, on a daylong visit with Conway in and around his Fine Hall office in Princeton, I gifted him with a clear plastic octahedron with the six smaller octahedra, one in each corner and the eight tetrahedra, one in each face.
Given we start within a sphere, these basic structures would appear to be scale invariant. Our early experience of that structure was within a thought experiment and it actually opened the universe to us. We were deep into a special application of combinatorics using base-2 and that tetrahedral-octahedral cluster, ostensibly following Zeno down to the Planck base units.
There we observed basic structure emerging from cubic close packing of equal spheres. https://81018.com/ccp/ And with that observation, we were hooked.
We didn’t understand much of what we saw, so we turned to people like you for a little help. Besides seeing the emergence of tetrahedrons and octahedrons, we could see within the spheres the endless continuity equation of pi (π), the endless symmetries of circles and spheres, and the remarkable harmonies of the Fourier Transform all converging into that first notation. We wondered if that might be a good definition of infinity and the qualitative. We wondered if the Planck base units were the beginning of the quantitative and define that infinitesimal sphere as a primordial building block.
We needed help and still do! Our latest effort is: https://81018.com/reformat/
Is there any hope for us? Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
PS. I recognize that doing a remake on quantum indeterminacy will not be easy. Introducing infinitesimal domains (or notations) where the tetrahedrons and octahedrons are perfectly enclosed may be even more difficult. There has not been much done on the geometry of gaps. –BEC
First email: 5 August 2021 @ 8:57 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Michael Shelley:
If Max Planck’s base calculations (natural units) are taken as a symbolic description* of the first moment of space-time and the calculation (approximately 13.81 billion years ago), do we have a starting point for the universe. Is the current time the endpoint?
If that logic is faulty, then the next two assumptions will be as well. Based on Planck’s numbers, there is a de facto expansion rate if we assume those Planck numbers describe a real reality. So what would be the simplest possible thing to manifest? Might we assume the sphere? If so, we can build the universe in a very different expression than what has been done to date: https://81018.com
In a high school geometry class in 2011 in New Orleans — http://81018.com/home/ –we considered that we had uncovered a new STEM tool — http://81018.com/stem/ Then,l we expanded our simple calculations. See: http://81018.com/chart/
We also began studying a little cosmology and realized how profoundly conflicted we’ve all become especially within academic circles. We finally concluded that all our little worldviews needed a highly-integrated, mathematical view of the universe. It all naturally unfolded within the 202 base-2 notations. It is the most simple-yet-extensive — encapsulating everything, everywhere, for all time — and inculcating continuity equations, symmetry functions, and harmonic functions all from the sphericals, that could open foundations to better understand who we are and why we are: http://81018.com/empower/
Your comments would be most helpful. Your work and your history are exquisite and powerful. Congratulations. And, thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
____