Consider the perfect symmetry of a circle. Go inside the circle, find the lattice, (top left image) and follow it until it becomes a simple tetrahedron. Discover the octahedron within it, and then the four hexagonal plates around the centerpoint of the octahedron. These appear to be the simplest possible beginnings of geometry as well as our universe. Yet, within our base-2 chart of the universe within its 202 notations from the Planck scale to the Age of the Universe, geometry begins to lose its functional applicability around the molecular level, i.e. the tetrahedral methane molecule (.72 nm or notation 86). Of course, just because we can’t measure it per se, doesn’t imply that finer structures are not there. Throughout the years, science has developed tools to measure lengths, time, mass and charge at smaller and smaller increments. Our limit on length today seems to be defined by CERN (Geneva) and labs like it. That brings us down into the range of the 67th notation. Given all the continuity equations we know there is something within the 66 smaller notations. Referring back to our base-2 chart at the 66th, our scaling vertices alone number 4.0173451×10^{59 } which gives us enough vertices to construct every possible potential geometry. One could assume that includes the geometries that make up the foundations of universe! In this model each notation builds progressively and each actively defines our expanding universe!

Begin with the Planck base units. Within the nexus of equations that define these units, might we hypothesize that each equation is a circle that is part of a sphere? Might we use a Langlands program, scalar field theory, or even loop quantum cosmology (LQC) to begin to postulate those geometric relations? Of course, we do not have answers and we may never have answers qua answers. Yet, we might hypostatize an answer (more than hypothesizing and less than reifying). Each doubling has time, length, charge and mass, and scaling vertices. Simple geometries necessarily emerge within a natural inflation. Though the possibilities quickly seem endless, we will need to make choices (i.e. line 12 of the chart) being somewhat guided by our initial analysis of just six sets of numbers out of the 202.

There are many experts to whom we will turn with our questions. Our model is such a stretch it is difficult for most scholars to engage. Yet, we will continue researching and trying to find those who are open enough either to pull us back into the real world or to encourage our explorations. We will delight with any judgment by those with knowledge, insight and wisdom.

Though just dynamic ratios, we believe each notation does unique work to structure our universe. We first began by exploring the workings of just numbers; now we will begin to watch every possible geometric relation within those numbers. Our goal is to get this new paradigm to start shifting the old to discover how every notation is always active.

“Science gives space and time too much space and time.”

Isaac Newton was the stinker who got us going in this direction. It may have something to do with being the Lucasian Professor at Cambridge University. He became the second person to hold the title. He oversold absolute space and time and had no respect for anyone who didn’t buy into it.

The deep history of space, time and geometry has been captured by experts like Brown, Davies, DiSalle, Lightman, and Penrose, among many other scholars. None of these people had ever seen a model of the universe that started at the Planck units and naturally expanded using base-2 notation. We are in search of scholars who would truly considered analyzing this nascent model. Though ours is a bit more recent, in 1957 Kees Boeke introduced a similar model using base-10.