On following the work of Magdalena Skipper…

Magdalena Skipper (PhD), Editor in Chief, Nature
Chief Editorial Advisor, Nature portfolio including Nature Communications

Articles: Day in the life of the editor in chief of Nature, 31 October 2019
ArXiv: Legends of Nature and Editors-in-chief (PDF), Zhiwen Hu, Chuhan Wu, Zhongliang Yang, Yongfeng Huang, Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:11:39 UTC
Homepage: Nature Communications, Springer Nature
YouTube: Magdalena Skipper, Editor in Chief, Nature Research Journal

Most recent and 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… iIt 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 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 are 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,


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.”

Here is her tweet. 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 big brains 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: https://81018.com/starts/

I thought you would find it of some interest. Surely I wish you well with your enterprise.



PS. Our model developed in a high school geometry class in 2011 resulted in these numbers in 2016: https://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