## View Poll Results: Might this simple model be a good place to over again?

Voters
5. You may not vote on this poll
• Yes

0 0%
• No

5 100.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.

# Thread: Could a simple mathematical model of the universe be a good starting point?

1. Newbie
Join Date
Mar 2018
Posts
1

## Could a simple mathematical model of the universe be a good starting point?

Our students and teachers came into cosmology through the back door.
We have dozens of questions, but one key question (below).

When Neil Turok tells us, "The big bang theory is wrong," we listen. That he
holds onto the infinitely hot, infinitely dense construct without even raising
a question is peculiar, however most have not seen or followed
a simple mathematical chart of doublings of the four Planck base units.

We started our chart within a high school geometry class by using Planck Length.
In 202 doublings, our initial chart of the universe emerged. We thought it was
a good STEM tool. But as we thought about the first 67 doublings up to the
CERN-scale, we knew that we needed more data. In 2014 we added Planck Time.
In 2015 we added Planck Mass and Planck Charge. In 2016 we created
a horizontal chart to study the numbers more carefully. In 2017 we selected
six sets of numbers distributed across the 202 to study more carefully. It’s
all fascinating, but perplexing...

Our key question: Why isn't this chart a possible first step in a new model?
Each doubling is alive-and-working NOW. Fully integrated, the first doubling to
the 202nd, begins with the simplest mathematics and geometry.

Thank you.

Most sincerely,
Bruce
***************
Bruce Camber
Austin, TX

Words in bold should be linked as follows:
1. Home: January 2012:home *link removed*
2. Turock: June 2017 - bbtheory *link removed*
3. infinitely hot: quiet *link removed*
5. Sampling of six: planck universe *link removed*
6. Beginning of a doubling-to-doubling analys: 1-102 *link removed*
7. Neil-Nima-Max (today's homepage): redefinition *link removed*
Last edited by tusenfem; 2018-Mar-29 at 07:55 AM. Reason: removal of links to BC's site

2. Bruce Camber

First, welcome to CQ.

Second, per our rules, you must present your idea here. You can link to supporting documents, but you must present your idea in sufficient detail here, and you have not done so yet. Essentially you are just advertising your own website so far.

In your next post you need to present your idea in detail.

3. Can I also request that when you quote people (Turok, Hawking, etc) you provide a reference so we can see what they said in context.

You also need need to distinguish between opinion and science. For example, there is no evidence for an “infinitely hot dense” state.

Finally, I noticed the dreaded phrase “just a theory” on your web page. That is often used by people who don’t understand how science works, so you might want to consider rephrasing it. (Similarly, you probably want to avoid words like “truth” and “proof” on a science forum.)

Rather than a poll, you should be demonstrating how well your theory matches the data.

I will wait for you to present your hypothesis before commenting further.

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,010
Originally Posted by Bruce Camber
Our students and teachers came into cosmology through the back door ....
Generally students are taught about cosmology combining the theory for any universe and the physical evidence for an expanding universe.

Start with the Planck length and it does not matter how many times you double it, you still have a length. The universe has 2 other dimensions of space and another of time.
Planck time, charge and mass have been around for over a century: Plank units
In particle physics and physical cosmology, Planck units are a set of units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are only one system of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype object or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen), but rather on only the properties of free space. Planck units have significance for theoretical physics since they simplify several recurring algebraic expressions of physical law by nondimensionalization. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity.
The answer to "Why isn't this chart a possible first step in a new model?" is because any doubling of the Planck length does not produce a chart.

Another aspect to the "“infinitely hot dense” state is that this is a signal that the known laws of physics break down at t = 0 in mainstream cosmology, Thus the Big Bang starts at t > 0 in a finite hot, dense state.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Mar-25 at 11:43 PM.

5. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,705

## "Poll: Might this simple model be a good place to over again?"

Science is not done by taking polls, particularly polls with missing words in the question.

I think you should "statr over."

6. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,731
Originally Posted by Bruce Camber
Our key question: Why isn't this chart a possible first step in a new model?
Each doubling is alive-and-working NOW. Fully integrated, the first doubling to
the 202nd, begins with the simplest mathematics and geometry
One reason may be that you seem not to have the slightest notion of what constitutes a scientific model. I took a brief look at your chart/table and it just seems to be a sequence of numbers produced by successive doublings. How that constitutes a model, or even a first step in a new model, is profoundly unclear. It seems to be a form of numerology, in which an arbitrary procedure generates a close coincidence with some constant of nature, which coincidence is then taken as a sign of some deep connection. Unless you can present a clearly-articulated description of what your model is supposed to do, and why this procedure is a logical approach (merely having the word "Planck" in it does not automatically endow it with scientific value), this will be a short-lived thread, I'm afraid.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2006
Posts
1,328
I don't understand what the doubling is supposed to do.

8. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,731
Originally Posted by stutefish
I don't understand what the doubling is supposed to do.
Unless and until the OP returns, none of us wil.

ETA: Yes, "wil" is missing a letter, but as the OP has already demonstrated a facility for doubling...
Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2018-Mar-28 at 03:47 PM.

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,705

## Whoops

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Science is not done by taking polls, particularly polls with missing words in the question.

I think you should "statr over."
Of course, that should be "start over".

Sorry.

10. Four days without an answer or a visit by Bruce Camber, so I guess he is not really interested.
Thread closed. If anyone has a strong reason why this should be re-opened, please report this message and make your claim.