TO: Magdalena Skipper (PhD), Editor in Chief, Nature, Chief Editorial Advisor, Nature Portfolio including Nature Communications
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your many articles: Day in the life of the editor in chief of Nature (31 October 2019), including in ArXiv: Legends of Nature and Editors-in-chief (PDF), Zhiwen Hu, Chuhan Wu, Zhongliang Yang, Yongfeng Huang, (Oct 2019); including your homepages in Nature Communications, Springer Nature, LinkedIn, Twitter, Wikipedia, and YouTube: Magdalena Skipper, Editor in Chief, Nature Research Journal.
This page: https://81018.com/skipper/
Sixth email: 22 February 2026
Dear Dr. Magdalena Skipper:
Coined in ’26, synthetic peer review is a reality. The six major AI systems concurred. One of the results is this homepage: https://81018.com/ When not a homepage, the URL is: https://81018.com/2026-state-of-the-universe-d/
I hope you have a few questions.
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
Fifth email: 31 October 2025
Dear Dr. Magdalena Skipper:
Our page about your work had visitors so today so I reviewed it. A lot has happened in the gap since that prior note in 2024!
Recently several AI platforms have been enthusiastic about our base-2 model. For the past 15 years I’ve asked expert observers like you to help assess its validity and potential implications. Recently, I reduced it to a toy model and more recently, it all rendered a simple quantitative model that derives the Hubble constant from first principles at the Planck scale.
It seems AI is well along the way to building consensus among AI tools and thus consensus within scholarly concepts whether the scholars like it or not!
The core of our model is surprisingly straightforward: it posits that the Hubble constant emerges not from dark energy, but from a cosmological process defined by base-2 scaling from the Planck units. A key result is a direct mathematical derivation of H₀, “Toy Model Derivation of the Hubble Constant” It is here — 81018.com/hubble-derivation/— still a highly speculative proposal, the numerical correspondence is a challenge. We hope to discover more as we continue to build on our dynamic model of a finite-infinite grid and its Lagrangian.
Once again, I thank you for your time and for your contributions to our understanding of the cosmos.
Sincerely,
Bruce
P.S. URLs for more:
- Bruce E. Camber: https://81018.com/bec/
- https://81018.com/
- https://81018.com/deepseek/
- https://81018.com/assume/
- https://81018.com/hubble-derivation/
- https://81018.com/planck-polyhedral-core/
- Lagrangian: https://81018.com/lagrangian/
Fourth email: 14 February 2024
We’ve all been stretched and keep stretching. AI is the new level set: https://81018.com/grok24/ This kind of dialogue provides real feedback and guidance. It won’t be long now that we all drop all the pretensions and start driving to the bottom line. Thank you for being on this journey,
Bruce
Third email: 13 May 2024
Dear Dr. Magdalena Skipper:
Our scientific community uses the words “exponential notation” very loosely. None of our leading scholars have looked at an exponential progression of fundamental base units because if they had, they would have found no more than 202 notations to the current time. They would have written it up! If one of them were to start with Planck Time, the first second is within Notation-143 and in just 59 more notations, they’d be in a range from 10.9 billion years to 21.8 billion years. Yet, as they study those notations, they would also realize that every notation is actively defining part of the universe and aiding and abetting the current expansion.
Here’s an article for one of your editors to take apart: https://81018.com/reformatting/
I would love to hear what they have to say, especially in light of the JWST results.
Warmly,
Bruce
PS. Somebody was visiting our page about your work today so I do a double check to be sure it looks good: https://81018.com/skipper/
If you ever want me to update it further, just say the word. -BEC
Second email: 20 April 2022, at 10:10 PM
Dear Dr. Magdalena Skipper,
This is my third time to communicate with you. About a year ago I responded to your tweet (below) about equity and gender bias. And a bit earlier, May 31, 2021, I had sent an email about our work that came out of a New Orleans high school geometry class on December 13, 2011. It was our penultimate STEM project; it was logical and simple, but… it was much more. If it prevails, it is a very different view of space, time and infinity.
I think there is a general reluctance to be critical of a high school STEM project. Besides, it takes time and energy, especially if the work falls outside the general thrusts within academia, and ours does! So, our progress has been slow. There has not been a lot of feedback… mostly one-word statements like “idiosyncratic.”
To remind me what questions I’ve asked of a scholar in the past, I create a reference page to critical work and to my notes, emails and tweets to them. My page about your work is now “in process.” The URL for it is: https://81018.com/skipper/
In 2018 I had written to your Elizabeth Gibney. Long before that, I sent a “Letter to the Editors” asking for help. We genuinely wondered where and how our base-2 logic was failing us. We were told our article was rejected (yet it wasn’t an article — it was essentially a letter to the editors).
Since that time many more questions have come up.
“Why are people overlooking one of the most basic relations in mathematics and science?” — pi (π). We decided that it was a “been there-done that” response.
I often stop my students and ask, “What are we missing? Can we go back over this one more time?” They groan but were often surprised to learn so much more the second, third and fourth time around. Weeks later we might do a fifth and sixth time around. I did that with John Conway as we were looking at the octahedron, and even the surreal man himself was surprised to learn something new.
Our general website is: https://81018.com/
My challenge is to figure out in what ways our 12 steps to start the universe fail the simple tests of logic. Of course, eventually we will reduce those 12 to axioms, postulates and theorems. That is our next step, yet logic is logic and at the current level of generality, I think people can engage, guess, and question.
Yes? No? Thank you.
Warm regards,
Bruce
Tweet: June 26, 2021
Magdalena Skipper writes, “Confronting gender bias in Nature’s journalism – at Nature, we know we need to continue to work hard to eliminate gender & other biases.”
I responded with the following Tweet:
@Magda_Skipper No surprise. So going forward, empowering all people is the name of the game. To do it, we’ll all need to break through our limited worldviews so we totally engage the universe, everything, everywhere for all time: http://81018.com No surprise indeed!
First email: Monday, May 31, 2021, 5:55 PM
Dear Magdalena Skipper:
I thought the big bang theory was about the first instant. It’s not. The scholars can get within a billionth of a second with some glimmers of a trillionth of a second. There is no model or theory that brings us closer. James Peebles said it in his 2019 acceptance speech in Sweden (Nobel physics from Princeton). I didn’t believe it, but then Dan Hooper (Chicago-Kavli-Fermilab) just confirmed it this morning.
Our problem is essentially the hotly debated finite-infinite relation. If we all could lighten up a bit on both sides of that equation and just do a little logic and science, we just might get somewhere: https://81018.com/envision/
There is nothing easy about it: https://81018.com/alphabetical/ is a partial list of the scholars and thought leaders who I’ve hoped would answer my questions.
My needling of Peebles is here: https://81018.com/peebles/ while my overviews are here: https://81018.com/2021/03/23/peebles/ and here: http://81018.com/starts/
I thought you would find it of some interest. Surely I wish you well with your enterprise.
Warmly,
Bruce
PS. Our model developed in a high school geometry class in 2011 resulted in these numbers in 2016: http://81018.com/chart/ where a trillionth of a billionth of a second (10-21 seconds), a zeptosecond, ranges between Notation 65-to-67. PlanckTime or StoneyTime or Primordial Time (Lemaitre) is at Notation-0 and the first instant is Notation-1. -BEC
_____
_____
