Within this website:
- A Different Framework To Define the Universe
- Communications in January 2020
- Your own page here: 81018.com/tyson/ (this page)
- The Tweets page: 81018.com/tweets/#Tyson
- Run the numbers: 81018.com/compilation/
- Map of the Universe: 81018.com/map-the-univer
- Mathematical Model: 81018.com/formulas/
- From the bottom Up: https://81018.com/bottom-up/
Tweet: 19 January 2022 @ 11:50 PM
@neiltyson Nor does it change as you go smaller and smaller, right down to the Planck or Stoney units. It works within the larger scale, too. Ultimately, it reflects and encapsulates a finite-infinite relation: https://81018.com/almost
Tweet: April 15, 2021 @9:45 AM
@neiltyson We cannot shepherd the future with our current worldviews. They’re all too small. We need an integrated view of the universe. Please guide us: http://81018.com We’ve just started on a base-2 model from Planck Time to today in 202 notations.
First email: January 11, 2020 @ 5:45 PM
Dear Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson:
Should we call to question Newton’s absolute space and time? Do the Planck formulas tell us that space and time are derivative of light? We’ve been so blinded by big bang cosmology, we failed to do a simple calculation, Planck Length divided by Planck Time is equal to 299,792,422.79 m/sec. That is 1.616255(38)×10-35 meters divided by 5.391247(13)×10-44 seconds. The result is close enough, within .0001% of the laboratory vacuum definition. If we take Planck Time and Planck Length to be the first moment of physical space and time — it seems quite logical — we can apply base-2 and encapsulate the universe in 202 notations. Across that spectrum the result is always within .1% of the laboratory number. The one-second mark is between the 143rd and 144th notations.
Lucasian Professors, particularly #2 and #17, didn’t always score 100% on all their results. None of us do.
Your comments would be highly appreciated.