CENTER FOR PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.June.2017
HOMEPAGES: ASSUMPTIONS |DARK|FORMULAS|INFINITY|KEYS|Map|REVIEW|Transformation|UP

Do we have the wrong model of life?

by Bruce Camber, June 2017

Introduction.  Babies and young children are naturally solipsistic; it is part of our instinct for survival. Our initial focus is all relative to oneself. Surely if you are a baby, it is okay to be “all about me.” A slow transition to the “We” begins when we learn the name of another person, i.e. one’s mother, then father.  Knowing others and other things begins to mitigate our natural solipsism.

1. Solipsism versus Science, Constants, and Universals. Have you ever said, “It’s all about me.” The more we focus on our self, the more out of balance we become. Though objective reality should be questioned (quantum physics), subjective reality is a very weak foundation to understand constants and universals. To avoid falling into that solipsistic mirror (reflections), we need to focus on relations. Within our studies of an integrated universe view, relations are the only real; and dynamic ratios hold subjects and objects together and in balance.

2. Narcissism versus Eternal Beauty and Integrity. “My universe is better than yours.” Narcissus looks at his reflection and loves what he sees. He’s captured by himself and begins to depart from all other relations.

3. Nihilism versus Creativity and Optimism. “It’s all ending badly so eat drink and be merry.” When not captivated by the mirror, the easy conclusion is, there are no standards, there is no abiding structure, and soon we die.

4. Dystopianism versus Growing Understanding and Development of Universal Structure. “Get ready for war games at every level. Think Syria. Think ISIS.” The insidious nature of nihilism ultimately leads to total chaos.

5. Ethics. Nature has an ethical bias.

Naïveté. Many of our readers know about our work, beginning in December 2011 from within our high school geometry classes. We had backed into a very simple, mathematical model of the universe; it is ever-so slowly being examined by scholars.

Another Direct Challenge to the Big Bang Theory. This one is simple. It may sound complex. It isn’t. Take a look at how tetrahedrons and octahedrons can perfectly tile and tessellate the universe. They can perfectly fill each other (unlike Matryoshka dolls) and they can completely tile and tessellate the universe. Here we discover how the power of 2, or doublings, or base-2  exponentiation is pivotal in mathematics, geometry, physics, chemistry and biology. The Planck base units are increasingly studied, understood and affirmed. This model with just over 202 doublings goes from the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe. That’s from the first moment of creation at Notation #1 to the first second of creation between notations 143 and 144 and to the this present day, current hour, and this very second within notation 202. Here you have the entire universe in 202 layers, steps, groups, or sets. Here everything is necessarily related to everything. This is the opposite of dystopia. When everything is necessarily related to everything, continuity-and-symmetry become the penultimate.

Although we have begun to interpret the numbers — it is not easy — there’s a long way to go.

This simple mathematical model is a scripting program that simulates the big bang, but, the starting point is the opposite of  “infinitely hot.” This model starts with the infinitesimal Planck Time and Planck Length as well as Planck Mass and Planck Charge. Each doubling of these four Planck units, notation after notation, defines all the phenomena of the big bang theory except there is no bang per se. It defines a natural inflation. It is 100% predictive. It outlines the cosmological epochs more pointedly than the big bang theory. It mimics cellular reproduction. It includes everything for all time and in all space. Simple, elegant, comprehensive, it is a basic mathematical platform that can readily incorporate and support all other mathematics.

But then, it does so much more. It opens up possibilities and probabilities. While still infinitesimal, it creates space for philosophies (even ethics), and the mind (even sleep). It gives homogeneity and isotropy a platform. It also gives dark matter and dark energy a foundation. And, most importantly, it redefines the infinite in ways that might open dialogues about universals and constants, the ultimate and eternal, first within the sciences, then between science and philosophy, then between science and religion, and maybe even between different religions.

Why didn’t the academics and scholars find this simple little model?

Planck Units: In the six years from conception to publishing, 1899-1905, Max Planck worked with five universal physical constants to define an essential reality and base platform for measurement. The results were four Planck base units: Planck Time, Planck Length, Planck Mass and Planck Charge that were “…properties of nature and not from any human construct.” Although engaged by many over time, the Planck numbers did not command basic respect across the entire scientific community. Not until 2001 when Frank Wilczek (MIT, Nobel laureate 2004) wrote a series of three articles for Physics Today, Scaling Mt. Planck, did I, II, III, these Planck units begin to move beyond numerology into wide-scale acceptability. By that time, the big bang theory had gained the high ground.

Nobody thought to follow simple nested or combinatorial geometries back to the Planck Length. Nobody thought to multiply the Planck units by 2. It took a huge amount of naïveté and almost no knowledge of cosmological models to bias one’s point of view. It also required discounting our commonsense view promulgated by Isaac Newton that space and time are absolute and to begin to adopt a relational model as suggested in 1715 by Leibniz.

Three research projects to define this model more completely:
• Measuring an Expanding Universe Using Planck Units (a work always in progress)
• The Thrust of the Universe: What is it? (a work always in progress)
• Visualizing the Universe (yes, a work always in progress)
Your comments and questions about our model of the Universe are most welcomed.
Thank you. – Bruce Camber

Let’s talk and let’s get to work!

• Revisit: Burst the Big Bang Bubble
• Contact: Email the Editors of scientific publications
• Contact: Max Tegmark (MIT),  the nature of infinity and his The Mathematical Universe
• Contact: Brandon Brown, author, Planck: Driven by Vision, Broken by War

News / Research
• Open Letter:  Editors of Science (magazine), American Association for the Advancement of Science
• Simple View of the Universe
• The Chart of an Integrated Universe View: What is your expertise? There are many blanks within many cells — over 2000 of them in the entire chart — so, we assume it will always be “under construction.”

Recent-and-related:
• Background: Do you have a Worldview? Could it be part of an integrated Universe View?
• NASA SpaceApp Challenge Reports
• Very Small-Scale Universe: What is hypostatic?

@Schusterman_Org Global views, like worldviews, are too small and often solipsistic: https://81018.com/solipsism/ People need to see themselves in light of our universe. Here is a start: http://81018.com

There are 202 base-2 notations from the first instant of our universe 13.8+ billion years ago to this day: https://81018.com/chart/

It is all just simple math but a dramatically different way to see who we are and why. If you’ll do a quick analysis of https://81018.com/empower/ we can work together to enliven this model and create an ROI on education because everything, everywhere for all time has a place and the finite-infinite relation is opened for more careful and critical studies. Thank you.

---