how can you have a new smaller space in
the old larger...?
Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
Its Dimension is expanding instead.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> how can you have a new smaller space in
> the old larger...?
> Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> Its Dimension is expanding instead.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.

One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
(2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
(2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.

Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.

Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Roger Penrose, Harry Cliff ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.

5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber_
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall_
> > Richard E. Taylor_
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer_
> > William Alfred Fowler_
> > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > James Watson Cronin_
> > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg_
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > Edward Witten
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book
> >
> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> >
> > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> >
> > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> >
> > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > Length: 64 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 790 KB
> > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Language: : English
> > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> > #2-2, 145th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > • Language: : English
> > • File size : 682 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 78 pages
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #2-3, 146th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-5, 174th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-6, 177th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-7, 178th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> >
> >
> > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> >
> > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > the old larger...?
> > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough.. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
>
> One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.

Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
Two for the price of one...
Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.

It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.

Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...

>
> Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 2:27:56 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > the old larger...?
> > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> >
> > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> Two for the price of one...
> Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
>
> It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
>
> Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...
> >
> > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.

How does material compress by accelerating? How does the atoms absolute
dimension go away? What about speed takes away length?
It has never been measured. It does not exist.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:57:51 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 2:27:56 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > > the old larger...?
> > > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> > >
> > > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> > Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> > Two for the price of one...
> > Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
> >
> > It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
> >
> > Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...
> > >
> > > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.
> How does material compress by accelerating? How does the atoms absolute
> dimension go away? What about speed takes away length?
> It has never been measured. It does not exist.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

I tend to agree with your concerns and your criticisms, and the apt titles of your threads.
As you've titled this one 'folding space' I think you are onto a potential interpretation, and I think this is all that we should claim of Einstein's relativity theory as well. When you claim to be curving spacetime, how can you remain in a tensor that was built in flat spacetime? Well, as things are kept simple the Lorentz transform is very much folding, but as to why things were orthogonal in the first place... this Cartesian assumption is somewhat a fraud position.

The realization that these treatments do strike ontological ground. Physics versus mathematics is a divide that cannot be abided here, as if you signed a waiver... that you never read... so modern, really... and yet complicity is not well felt by the human. As we are elements, or colloids perhaps, in or of this medium that we discuss our access to the basis is not guaranteed. That we will be tricked by it is fairly well guaranteed. Let's suppose that our 'y' dimension is actually half of our Cartesian 'x' dimension; you rotate your inch wide tape measure, that was measuring along the x axis eleven inches, to the y axis. Does the tape double in width?

I suppose we can simply name the two options here without troubling over which is correct; the effect is either observable or it is unobservable. As well though, the very language that I used: "is actually half of our Cartesian 'x' dimension"; has to be scrutinized. Especially in the unobservable case, it is as if we've generated a secondary space with a 'flat' metric from which we can view the first skewed space. The issuance of the measuring rod, as if it is an ultimate truth teller, like the tape measure here: what will we be verifying it with but another tape measure? So you sit there playing with these tape measures, measuring the width of one with the other, rotating them about, and nothing happens. Meanwhile this exterior observer is watching them shrink and expand and sees a very distinct bias as you try to observe the effect.

This idea of accessing the basis from which we come is on its own terms extremely problematic. That we are engaged in a guessing game that seems to go awry is not at all a surprise if we keep this simplistic awareness. This philosophical boundary is exposed regularly. You can't get any stronger than the 'First principle of cosmology': isotropy... but it goes on from there, and now I am finding that even the Cartesian basis has weaknesses. Of course all of this awareness comes via the realization of polysign numbers. But I do believe that it stands freely without them.

That the concept of 'space' includes every object in space: this is one way to look at it; a very realistic way.
That the concept of 'space' as devoid of objects, in which we introduce perhaps two objects to study: this has been our way into physics, and like Euclidean geometry starting with a blank sheet, this has been absorbed as an assumption into the first principle of cosmology, but you must see the flaw. Indeed the paper was but a representation, and we will not be evacuating all the matter from our space to observe that it is the same in every direction, and indeed with those unique materials clearly the space is not at all the same in every direction. Then the formal ones who see this tack on the term 'on average', and you just have to chuckle. That this is the state of modern physics: that here in just a couple of paragraphs it can be falsified; this is how early in the progression we are, and rather than just blow snot on the status quo, I'll have to admit that without it there would be very little way for me to have progressed. As well though, to expect that the system will actually react to my statements here is not realistic either.

I think this really has to come around to human behavior and gullibility. Under these human constraints falsification is not actually so operant. The conflict is somehow wiped away as if it never occurred, and this is the human mind, and especially the trained human mind. Already our minds are capable of handling exceptions nested deep. Mimicry is the measure of the straight A's. Breaking free of this mantra, especially at a low level upon which so much claims to be built, is not a happy place. Yet I'm not sour, and I think these topics are alive, and perhaps some GI will come along and admit that it's position as barely even an observer is in tension with data overload... data overlord... who is controlling your data, sir? Trust is not an unconditional occurrence... ever. Lies are detectable, and source philosophy in its simplest terms. Consistency and coherency are decent first metrics.. Inconsistency and incoherency are simply tools that need work and do work as we pare away at them. Seek the truth and speak your truth is the most fundamental directive, and when denied a sort of poverty ensues.

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > the old larger...?
> > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> >
> > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> Two for the price of one...
> Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
>
> It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
>
> Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...
> >
> > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.

I don't think this model begets the modulo form of space very well. It can be made to, but it's quite a loaded series of choices. Considering firstly the simplest xy sector, and a ray emanating from an (x,y) position in that sector, heading toward some other point (x1,y1) in that sector, then hitting the side... and then what? What exactly is the proper modulo space to do here? Did we already restrict to diametrical form?

Scenario: at (1,1) a ray emanates toward (0,2) in a sector of thirty degrees. No diametrical restriction is in use. If this ray were then to emanate from the (2,0) position we would affect the modulo condition of the space wrapping back onto itself. At this point we might simply wrap that sector into a cone but for our ability to coordinate positions via this method. What is the meaning of this? The distinction between the x and the y systems is somewhat gone, and I think that is a good thing. To what degree is the cone detail an interpretation and to what degree is that interpretation imposing the 3D physical space that we exist in onto a supposedly pure fundamental form? By an argument of locality I think I can ignore the puzzle of a ray hitting the origin; we are out somewhere on this thing, and haven't we at least diminished the sense of it having an edge? To arbitrarily plop down an origin in our locality on this planar surface and throw it some sort of an RxR reference is fine I suppose. As to whether this procedure is general dimensional... I don't think so, but dimensional trickery is partly what I am admitting that I face in all of this construction. Just the fact that we happily visualize this pure sector meeting this cone requirement; I can't just do that in the next stage.

As to physical effects of a folding space it would be good to study the ray trace that returns, and that happens to be the diametrical trace. If we allow say a thousand light years for this then how are we going to be worrying about it at all? If we observe our own transmission might it just be a repeater? Periodicity should appear at some point in the cosmological observations, but periodicity with evolution, and now that tau of diameter could possibly be derived. As to redundancy; this part is well established. So much so that we could claim support for this modulo theory of space.

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > > the old larger...?
> > > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> > >
> > > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> > Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> > Two for the price of one...
> > Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
> >
> > It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
> >
> > Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...
> > >
> > > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.
> I don't think this model begets the modulo form of space very well. It can be made to, but it's quite a loaded series of choices. Considering firstly the simplest xy sector, and a ray emanating from an (x,y) position in that sector, heading toward some other point (x1,y1) in that sector, then hitting the side... and then what? What exactly is the proper modulo space to do here? Did we already restrict to diametrical form?
>
> Scenario: at (1,1) a ray emanates toward (0,2) in a sector of thirty degrees. No diametrical restriction is in use. If this ray were then to emanate from the (2,0) position we would affect the modulo condition of the space wrapping back onto itself. At this point we might simply wrap that sector into a cone but for our ability to coordinate positions via this method. What is the meaning of this? The distinction between the x and the y systems is somewhat gone, and I think that is a good thing. To what degree is the cone detail an interpretation and to what degree is that interpretation imposing the 3D physical space that we exist in onto a supposedly pure fundamental form? By an argument of locality I think I can ignore the puzzle of a ray hitting the origin; we are out somewhere on this thing, and haven't we at least diminished the sense of it having an edge? To arbitrarily plop down an origin in our locality on this planar surface and throw it some sort of an RxR reference is fine I suppose. As to whether this procedure is general dimensional... I don't think so, but dimensional trickery is partly what I am admitting that I face in all of this construction. Just the fact that we happily visualize this pure sector meeting this cone requirement; I can't just do that in the next stage.
>
> As to physical effects of a folding space it would be good to study the ray trace that returns, and that happens to be the diametrical trace. If we allow say a thousand light years for this then how are we going to be worrying about it at all? If we observe our own transmission might it just be a repeater? Periodicity should appear at some point in the cosmological observations, but periodicity with evolution, and now that tau of diameter could possibly be derived. As to redundancy; this part is well established. So much so that we could claim support for this modulo theory of space.

I have another question. Where does distance go away to
and how can it come back by slowing back down?

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:33:24 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > > > the old larger...?
> > > > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> > > >
> > > > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > > > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > > > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > > > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> > > Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> > > Two for the price of one...
> > > Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
> > >
> > > It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
> > >
> > > Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result.. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...
> > > >
> > > > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.
> > I don't think this model begets the modulo form of space very well. It can be made to, but it's quite a loaded series of choices. Considering firstly the simplest xy sector, and a ray emanating from an (x,y) position in that sector, heading toward some other point (x1,y1) in that sector, then hitting the side... and then what? What exactly is the proper modulo space to do here? Did we already restrict to diametrical form?
> >
> > Scenario: at (1,1) a ray emanates toward (0,2) in a sector of thirty degrees. No diametrical restriction is in use. If this ray were then to emanate from the (2,0) position we would affect the modulo condition of the space wrapping back onto itself. At this point we might simply wrap that sector into a cone but for our ability to coordinate positions via this method. What is the meaning of this? The distinction between the x and the y systems is somewhat gone, and I think that is a good thing. To what degree is the cone detail an interpretation and to what degree is that interpretation imposing the 3D physical space that we exist in onto a supposedly pure fundamental form? By an argument of locality I think I can ignore the puzzle of a ray hitting the origin; we are out somewhere on this thing, and haven't we at least diminished the sense of it having an edge? To arbitrarily plop down an origin in our locality on this planar surface and throw it some sort of an RxR reference is fine I suppose. As to whether this procedure is general dimensional... I don't think so, but dimensional trickery is partly what I am admitting that I face in all of this construction. Just the fact that we happily visualize this pure sector meeting this cone requirement; I can't just do that in the next stage.
> >
> > As to physical effects of a folding space it would be good to study the ray trace that returns, and that happens to be the diametrical trace. If we allow say a thousand light years for this then how are we going to be worrying about it at all? If we observe our own transmission might it just be a repeater? Periodicity should appear at some point in the cosmological observations, but periodicity with evolution, and now that tau of diameter could possibly be derived. As to redundancy; this part is well established. So much so that we could claim support for this modulo theory of space.
> I have another question. Where does distance go away to
> and how can it come back by slowing back down?

Distance goes away at the speed of light. So the photon is responsible for collapsing distance, at least according to relativity theory. And yet it still keeps its measuring rod; its wavelength; intact. Chargeless, massless, energetic, zero dimensional in its own reference frame, is it so in every frame? By redshift it is not. Does it really even oscillate? A particle? I don't feel anywhere near to reinventing the photon, but physicists have moved pretty far away from the electromagnetic interpretation of them.

Back in the folding space, isn't it true that the effect is global? Geeze, that terminology is not exactly clean. Should I say universal? If we existed in a little bit of a differentially unfolded space; pretty far away from the origin, and even diametrically isolated from its issues in a subdimension that would have four originated components as in the YxY unified unfolding, to keep things static anyways, though the symmetry of that Cartesian product just there is as suspect as any other, what I mean to point out is that if this space were fluctuating in its exterior metric we would not be feeling it as its emergent byproducts. Our measuring rods will be fluctuating in the space. Their conservation is apt as a topic, and that the atom alone even is not enough, let alone the photon, for we need extended solids that occur only in our temperate zone to even beget this dimensional description of the space we inhabit. This is to say that at high temperature no measuring rods exist as we know them. No Euclidean geometry exists because the tools of its trade cannot be built. If you think that mathematicians are so deft that they can work these things through out of fluids; that there is no physical correspondence going on inside the mathematician's brain; well, if I showed you an escapee would you insist that he goes back to the asylum?

The very issue of heat even as a kinetic form fails in the solid state. Entropy seems to fail here as well; as a perfectly unique and patterned snow flake coalesces from the tail of a comet, or at least I fancy it this way. More readily falling from the sky on certain portions of the Earth at this moment. To state that crystalline structures are low entropy seems like stuffing a sock into ones mouth. Without them we get nowhere.

To me high temperature is low entropy, and low temperature is high entropy. And upon engaging the crystalline form, what of the remarkably slow propagation of heat energy? When you can ding one end of a bar of silicon, say, and the sound comes out almost immediately at the other end, then you touch a blow torch to the end and wait an hour to see a tiny rise at the other end. Maybe get a second canister of propane and a cup of coffee, and finally a gently and barely discernible change in the thermometer occurs. You check the wall thermometer, and sure enough it rose more than the silicon did, and you scratch your head, sipping the coffee, wishing it was a little sweeter. What a beautiful system modern theory is. The kinetic theory of heat reigns supreme, and solid state physics and its anions of pluralons which are needed to cover this present situation are deeply felt.

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 7:00:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:33:24 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > > > > the old larger...?
> > > > > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > > > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> > > > >
> > > > > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > > > > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > > > > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > > > > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here..
> > > > Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> > > > Two for the price of one...
> > > > Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
> > > >
> > > > It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
> > > >
> > > > Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram.. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.
> > > I don't think this model begets the modulo form of space very well. It can be made to, but it's quite a loaded series of choices. Considering firstly the simplest xy sector, and a ray emanating from an (x,y) position in that sector, heading toward some other point (x1,y1) in that sector, then hitting the side... and then what? What exactly is the proper modulo space to do here? Did we already restrict to diametrical form?
> > >
> > > Scenario: at (1,1) a ray emanates toward (0,2) in a sector of thirty degrees. No diametrical restriction is in use. If this ray were then to emanate from the (2,0) position we would affect the modulo condition of the space wrapping back onto itself. At this point we might simply wrap that sector into a cone but for our ability to coordinate positions via this method. What is the meaning of this? The distinction between the x and the y systems is somewhat gone, and I think that is a good thing. To what degree is the cone detail an interpretation and to what degree is that interpretation imposing the 3D physical space that we exist in onto a supposedly pure fundamental form? By an argument of locality I think I can ignore the puzzle of a ray hitting the origin; we are out somewhere on this thing, and haven't we at least diminished the sense of it having an edge? To arbitrarily plop down an origin in our locality on this planar surface and throw it some sort of an RxR reference is fine I suppose. As to whether this procedure is general dimensional... I don't think so, but dimensional trickery is partly what I am admitting that I face in all of this construction. Just the fact that we happily visualize this pure sector meeting this cone requirement; I can't just do that in the next stage.
> > >
> > > As to physical effects of a folding space it would be good to study the ray trace that returns, and that happens to be the diametrical trace. If we allow say a thousand light years for this then how are we going to be worrying about it at all? If we observe our own transmission might it just be a repeater? Periodicity should appear at some point in the cosmological observations, but periodicity with evolution, and now that tau of diameter could possibly be derived. As to redundancy; this part is well established. So much so that we could claim support for this modulo theory of space.
> > I have another question. Where does distance go away to
> > and how can it come back by slowing back down?
> Distance goes away at the speed of light. So the photon is responsible for collapsing distance, at least according to relativity theory. And yet it still keeps its measuring rod; its wavelength; intact. Chargeless, massless, energetic, zero dimensional in its own reference frame, is it so in every frame? By redshift it is not. Does it really even oscillate? A particle? I don't feel anywhere near to reinventing the photon, but physicists have moved pretty far away from the electromagnetic interpretation of them.
>
> Back in the folding space, isn't it true that the effect is global? Geeze, that terminology is not exactly clean. Should I say universal? If we existed in a little bit of a differentially unfolded space; pretty far away from the origin, and even diametrically isolated from its issues in a subdimension that would have four originated components as in the YxY unified unfolding, to keep things static anyways, though the symmetry of that Cartesian product just there is as suspect as any other, what I mean to point out is that if this space were fluctuating in its exterior metric we would not be feeling it as its emergent byproducts. Our measuring rods will be fluctuating in the space. Their conservation is apt as a topic, and that the atom alone even is not enough, let alone the photon, for we need extended solids that occur only in our temperate zone to even beget this dimensional description of the space we inhabit. This is to say that at high temperature no measuring rods exist as we know them. No Euclidean geometry exists because the tools of its trade cannot be built. If you think that mathematicians are so deft that they can work these things through out of fluids; that there is no physical correspondence going on inside the mathematician's brain; well, if I showed you an escapee would you insist that he goes back to the asylum?
>
> The very issue of heat even as a kinetic form fails in the solid state. Entropy seems to fail here as well; as a perfectly unique and patterned snow flake coalesces from the tail of a comet, or at least I fancy it this way. More readily falling from the sky on certain portions of the Earth at this moment. To state that crystalline structures are low entropy seems like stuffing a sock into ones mouth. Without them we get nowhere.
>
> To me high temperature is low entropy, and low temperature is high entropy. And upon engaging the crystalline form, what of the remarkably slow propagation of heat energy? When you can ding one end of a bar of silicon, say, and the sound comes out almost immediately at the other end, then you touch a blow torch to the end and wait an hour to see a tiny rise at the other end. Maybe get a second canister of propane and a cup of coffee, and finally a gently and barely discernible change in the thermometer occurs. You check the wall thermometer, and sure enough it rose more than the silicon did, and you scratch your head, sipping the coffee, wishing it was a little sweeter. What a beautiful system modern theory is. The kinetic theory of heat reigns supreme, and solid state physics and its anions of pluralons which are needed to cover this present situation are deeply felt.
>
> So as we puzzle over distance, and the tools required to measure distance, and we see the stage in the progression that we are actually at, what we witness is just how far behind theory lags from experiment. Then curve fitting becomes what is known as theory, and the divorce of physics from philosophy accelerates. Logic can be left behind. Throw in some government funding for these fish to chase and who knows what will come back. Some barely repeatable physics at some critical temperature and condition could explain the strangeness of current events around us now. It is too easy to settle back onto ape status, and the deep state guides us there every step of the way. Resistance futile? Read Gandhi.

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 7:00:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:33:24 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > > > > > the old larger...?
> > > > > > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > > > > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > > > > > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > > > > > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > > > > > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> > > > > Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> > > > > Two for the price of one...
> > > > > Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
> > > > >
> > > > > Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.
> > > > I don't think this model begets the modulo form of space very well. It can be made to, but it's quite a loaded series of choices. Considering firstly the simplest xy sector, and a ray emanating from an (x,y) position in that sector, heading toward some other point (x1,y1) in that sector, then hitting the side... and then what? What exactly is the proper modulo space to do here? Did we already restrict to diametrical form?
> > > >
> > > > Scenario: at (1,1) a ray emanates toward (0,2) in a sector of thirty degrees. No diametrical restriction is in use. If this ray were then to emanate from the (2,0) position we would affect the modulo condition of the space wrapping back onto itself. At this point we might simply wrap that sector into a cone but for our ability to coordinate positions via this method. What is the meaning of this? The distinction between the x and the y systems is somewhat gone, and I think that is a good thing. To what degree is the cone detail an interpretation and to what degree is that interpretation imposing the 3D physical space that we exist in onto a supposedly pure fundamental form? By an argument of locality I think I can ignore the puzzle of a ray hitting the origin; we are out somewhere on this thing, and haven't we at least diminished the sense of it having an edge? To arbitrarily plop down an origin in our locality on this planar surface and throw it some sort of an RxR reference is fine I suppose. As to whether this procedure is general dimensional... I don't think so, but dimensional trickery is partly what I am admitting that I face in all of this construction. Just the fact that we happily visualize this pure sector meeting this cone requirement; I can't just do that in the next stage.
> > > >
> > > > As to physical effects of a folding space it would be good to study the ray trace that returns, and that happens to be the diametrical trace. If we allow say a thousand light years for this then how are we going to be worrying about it at all? If we observe our own transmission might it just be a repeater? Periodicity should appear at some point in the cosmological observations, but periodicity with evolution, and now that tau of diameter could possibly be derived. As to redundancy; this part is well established.. So much so that we could claim support for this modulo theory of space.
> > > I have another question. Where does distance go away to
> > > and how can it come back by slowing back down?
> > Distance goes away at the speed of light. So the photon is responsible for collapsing distance, at least according to relativity theory. And yet it still keeps its measuring rod; its wavelength; intact. Chargeless, massless, energetic, zero dimensional in its own reference frame, is it so in every frame? By redshift it is not. Does it really even oscillate? A particle? I don't feel anywhere near to reinventing the photon, but physicists have moved pretty far away from the electromagnetic interpretation of them.
> >
> > Back in the folding space, isn't it true that the effect is global? Geeze, that terminology is not exactly clean. Should I say universal? If we existed in a little bit of a differentially unfolded space; pretty far away from the origin, and even diametrically isolated from its issues in a subdimension that would have four originated components as in the YxY unified unfolding, to keep things static anyways, though the symmetry of that Cartesian product just there is as suspect as any other, what I mean to point out is that if this space were fluctuating in its exterior metric we would not be feeling it as its emergent byproducts. Our measuring rods will be fluctuating in the space. Their conservation is apt as a topic, and that the atom alone even is not enough, let alone the photon, for we need extended solids that occur only in our temperate zone to even beget this dimensional description of the space we inhabit. This is to say that at high temperature no measuring rods exist as we know them. No Euclidean geometry exists because the tools of its trade cannot be built. If you think that mathematicians are so deft that they can work these things through out of fluids; that there is no physical correspondence going on inside the mathematician's brain; well, if I showed you an escapee would you insist that he goes back to the asylum?
> >
> > The very issue of heat even as a kinetic form fails in the solid state. Entropy seems to fail here as well; as a perfectly unique and patterned snow flake coalesces from the tail of a comet, or at least I fancy it this way. More readily falling from the sky on certain portions of the Earth at this moment. To state that crystalline structures are low entropy seems like stuffing a sock into ones mouth. Without them we get nowhere.
> >
> > To me high temperature is low entropy, and low temperature is high entropy. And upon engaging the crystalline form, what of the remarkably slow propagation of heat energy? When you can ding one end of a bar of silicon, say, and the sound comes out almost immediately at the other end, then you touch a blow torch to the end and wait an hour to see a tiny rise at the other end. Maybe get a second canister of propane and a cup of coffee, and finally a gently and barely discernible change in the thermometer occurs. You check the wall thermometer, and sure enough it rose more than the silicon did, and you scratch your head, sipping the coffee, wishing it was a little sweeter. What a beautiful system modern theory is. The kinetic theory of heat reigns supreme, and solid state physics and its anions of pluralons which are needed to cover this present situation are deeply felt.
> >
> > So as we puzzle over distance, and the tools required to measure distance, and we see the stage in the progression that we are actually at, what we witness is just how far behind theory lags from experiment. Then curve fitting becomes what is known as theory, and the divorce of physics from philosophy accelerates. Logic can be left behind. Throw in some government funding for these fish to chase and who knows what will come back. Some barely repeatable physics at some critical temperature and condition could explain the strangeness of current events around us now. It is too easy to settle back onto ape status, and the deep state guides us there every step of the way. Resistance futile? Read Gandhi.
> How does dimension of the universe go away?
> Why would moving in space take away space?
> No. Space contraction could only be an appearance.
> In the case of space travel slow time makes
> an appearance travelling through a larger distance.

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 5:52:12 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 7:00:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:33:24 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > > > > > > the old larger...?
> > > > > > > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > > > > > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > > > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > > > > > > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > > > > > > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > > > > > > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> > > > > > Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice.. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> > > > > > Two for the price of one...
> > > > > > Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.
> > > > > I don't think this model begets the modulo form of space very well. It can be made to, but it's quite a loaded series of choices. Considering firstly the simplest xy sector, and a ray emanating from an (x,y) position in that sector, heading toward some other point (x1,y1) in that sector, then hitting the side... and then what? What exactly is the proper modulo space to do here? Did we already restrict to diametrical form?
> > > > >
> > > > > Scenario: at (1,1) a ray emanates toward (0,2) in a sector of thirty degrees. No diametrical restriction is in use. If this ray were then to emanate from the (2,0) position we would affect the modulo condition of the space wrapping back onto itself. At this point we might simply wrap that sector into a cone but for our ability to coordinate positions via this method. What is the meaning of this? The distinction between the x and the y systems is somewhat gone, and I think that is a good thing. To what degree is the cone detail an interpretation and to what degree is that interpretation imposing the 3D physical space that we exist in onto a supposedly pure fundamental form? By an argument of locality I think I can ignore the puzzle of a ray hitting the origin; we are out somewhere on this thing, and haven't we at least diminished the sense of it having an edge? To arbitrarily plop down an origin in our locality on this planar surface and throw it some sort of an RxR reference is fine I suppose. As to whether this procedure is general dimensional... I don't think so, but dimensional trickery is partly what I am admitting that I face in all of this construction. Just the fact that we happily visualize this pure sector meeting this cone requirement; I can't just do that in the next stage.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to physical effects of a folding space it would be good to study the ray trace that returns, and that happens to be the diametrical trace.. If we allow say a thousand light years for this then how are we going to be worrying about it at all? If we observe our own transmission might it just be a repeater? Periodicity should appear at some point in the cosmological observations, but periodicity with evolution, and now that tau of diameter could possibly be derived. As to redundancy; this part is well established. So much so that we could claim support for this modulo theory of space.
> > > > I have another question. Where does distance go away to
> > > > and how can it come back by slowing back down?
> > > Distance goes away at the speed of light. So the photon is responsible for collapsing distance, at least according to relativity theory. And yet it still keeps its measuring rod; its wavelength; intact. Chargeless, massless, energetic, zero dimensional in its own reference frame, is it so in every frame? By redshift it is not. Does it really even oscillate? A particle? I don't feel anywhere near to reinventing the photon, but physicists have moved pretty far away from the electromagnetic interpretation of them.
> > >
> > > Back in the folding space, isn't it true that the effect is global? Geeze, that terminology is not exactly clean. Should I say universal? If we existed in a little bit of a differentially unfolded space; pretty far away from the origin, and even diametrically isolated from its issues in a subdimension that would have four originated components as in the YxY unified unfolding, to keep things static anyways, though the symmetry of that Cartesian product just there is as suspect as any other, what I mean to point out is that if this space were fluctuating in its exterior metric we would not be feeling it as its emergent byproducts. Our measuring rods will be fluctuating in the space. Their conservation is apt as a topic, and that the atom alone even is not enough, let alone the photon, for we need extended solids that occur only in our temperate zone to even beget this dimensional description of the space we inhabit. This is to say that at high temperature no measuring rods exist as we know them. No Euclidean geometry exists because the tools of its trade cannot be built. If you think that mathematicians are so deft that they can work these things through out of fluids; that there is no physical correspondence going on inside the mathematician's brain; well, if I showed you an escapee would you insist that he goes back to the asylum?
> > >
> > > The very issue of heat even as a kinetic form fails in the solid state. Entropy seems to fail here as well; as a perfectly unique and patterned snow flake coalesces from the tail of a comet, or at least I fancy it this way. More readily falling from the sky on certain portions of the Earth at this moment. To state that crystalline structures are low entropy seems like stuffing a sock into ones mouth. Without them we get nowhere.
> > >
> > > To me high temperature is low entropy, and low temperature is high entropy. And upon engaging the crystalline form, what of the remarkably slow propagation of heat energy? When you can ding one end of a bar of silicon, say, and the sound comes out almost immediately at the other end, then you touch a blow torch to the end and wait an hour to see a tiny rise at the other end. Maybe get a second canister of propane and a cup of coffee, and finally a gently and barely discernible change in the thermometer occurs. You check the wall thermometer, and sure enough it rose more than the silicon did, and you scratch your head, sipping the coffee, wishing it was a little sweeter. What a beautiful system modern theory is. The kinetic theory of heat reigns supreme, and solid state physics and its anions of pluralons which are needed to cover this present situation are deeply felt.
> > >
> > > So as we puzzle over distance, and the tools required to measure distance, and we see the stage in the progression that we are actually at, what we witness is just how far behind theory lags from experiment. Then curve fitting becomes what is known as theory, and the divorce of physics from philosophy accelerates. Logic can be left behind. Throw in some government funding for these fish to chase and who knows what will come back. Some barely repeatable physics at some critical temperature and condition could explain the strangeness of current events around us now. It is too easy to settle back onto ape status, and the deep state guides us there every step of the way. Resistance futile? Read Gandhi.
> > How does dimension of the universe go away?
> > Why would moving in space take away space?
> > No. Space contraction could only be an appearance.
> > In the case of space travel slow time makes
> > an appearance travelling through a larger distance.
> How it has arisen at all is sort of the unspeakable puzzle amongst both physicists and mathematicians.
> It used to be that the graviton was going to yield the spacetime basis, but that doesn't seem to have happened.
> Gee, could there be something wrong with the math?
> Like, with regard to geometry is everything built from the line?
> Let's see, now, there was R, and then there was RxR, and then RxRxR, RxRxRxR, RxRxRxRxR;
> and about there was Klein wasn't it? Before that Einstein, and before that Maxwell, and as to who set up that plane that way it certainly was not Rene Descartes, for he did not even abide the real line. Hmmmm... let's see, is there some sign here of what's gone wrong?
> A duel amongst duals?
> The fully unfolded form is where dimensional collapse occurs. Two slender rays can beget the life of the plane in a limited way, but bring them all the way open to the balanced form and you'll be needing a third. That 's the polysign way. You'll get your emergent spacetime in short order. As if that wasn't good enough you've got to trouble over the folded forms as well.... they are awfully pretty, and petty, you could say, as they bubble up and branch from naught. As to whether you fit the one into the other, as if a basis wasn't a basis at all, and in your form your access to it is perfect.... wrongly so, sir.
>
> And then again, the society that we live in, from first principle, insists on wiping away all detail in order to declare space consistent. Now there is a sensible start to things. It's no wonder the thing has turned into a blunder. You see the big dipper up there in the sky? Why, that is not structure, sir. Wipe it away. This from a race of near babboons who cannot get past their real line. I suppose it will happen in time, and hopefully a few of my nasty notes on the deep state of the past will remain. I suppose as ants form their larger society so do humans. It is to say that there is a super-organism that essentially eats itself. It is the unfortunate state of humans. Honestly, this form of identity I thought to be ideal, of course that is relative to the subsetting that leads to the blood letting. This form of globalism is not at all what is being taught. The sheer fraud in the human race is just simply one blunder after another. Ah, I see, and as a good game of chess is mainly played in the avoidance of mistakes, which by the way makes the game quite dull and boring from my unmasterful perspective, and especially my American perspective, well, I lose. It is where the new cheese which need not compete with the old cheeses was fabricated. Football needn't be played, especially not the old way where we might lose to other more experienced players. I'm amazed we never came up with our own rules for chess... oh, you say we did? When Godzilla plays chess, watch out...
> especially with that broken arm.

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:46:16 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 5:52:12 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 7:00:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:33:24 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > > > > > > > the old larger...?
> > > > > > > > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > > > > > > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > > > > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > > > > > > > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > > > > > > > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > > > > > > > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> > > > > > > Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> > > > > > > Two for the price of one...
> > > > > > > Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.
> > > > > > I don't think this model begets the modulo form of space very well. It can be made to, but it's quite a loaded series of choices. Considering firstly the simplest xy sector, and a ray emanating from an (x,y) position in that sector, heading toward some other point (x1,y1) in that sector, then hitting the side... and then what? What exactly is the proper modulo space to do here? Did we already restrict to diametrical form?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scenario: at (1,1) a ray emanates toward (0,2) in a sector of thirty degrees. No diametrical restriction is in use. If this ray were then to emanate from the (2,0) position we would affect the modulo condition of the space wrapping back onto itself. At this point we might simply wrap that sector into a cone but for our ability to coordinate positions via this method. What is the meaning of this? The distinction between the x and the y systems is somewhat gone, and I think that is a good thing. To what degree is the cone detail an interpretation and to what degree is that interpretation imposing the 3D physical space that we exist in onto a supposedly pure fundamental form? By an argument of locality I think I can ignore the puzzle of a ray hitting the origin; we are out somewhere on this thing, and haven't we at least diminished the sense of it having an edge? To arbitrarily plop down an origin in our locality on this planar surface and throw it some sort of an RxR reference is fine I suppose. As to whether this procedure is general dimensional... I don't think so, but dimensional trickery is partly what I am admitting that I face in all of this construction. Just the fact that we happily visualize this pure sector meeting this cone requirement; I can't just do that in the next stage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As to physical effects of a folding space it would be good to study the ray trace that returns, and that happens to be the diametrical trace. If we allow say a thousand light years for this then how are we going to be worrying about it at all? If we observe our own transmission might it just be a repeater? Periodicity should appear at some point in the cosmological observations, but periodicity with evolution, and now that tau of diameter could possibly be derived. As to redundancy; this part is well established. So much so that we could claim support for this modulo theory of space.
> > > > > I have another question. Where does distance go away to
> > > > > and how can it come back by slowing back down?
> > > > Distance goes away at the speed of light. So the photon is responsible for collapsing distance, at least according to relativity theory. And yet it still keeps its measuring rod; its wavelength; intact. Chargeless, massless, energetic, zero dimensional in its own reference frame, is it so in every frame? By redshift it is not. Does it really even oscillate? A particle? I don't feel anywhere near to reinventing the photon, but physicists have moved pretty far away from the electromagnetic interpretation of them.
> > > >
> > > > Back in the folding space, isn't it true that the effect is global? Geeze, that terminology is not exactly clean. Should I say universal? If we existed in a little bit of a differentially unfolded space; pretty far away from the origin, and even diametrically isolated from its issues in a subdimension that would have four originated components as in the YxY unified unfolding, to keep things static anyways, though the symmetry of that Cartesian product just there is as suspect as any other, what I mean to point out is that if this space were fluctuating in its exterior metric we would not be feeling it as its emergent byproducts. Our measuring rods will be fluctuating in the space. Their conservation is apt as a topic, and that the atom alone even is not enough, let alone the photon, for we need extended solids that occur only in our temperate zone to even beget this dimensional description of the space we inhabit. This is to say that at high temperature no measuring rods exist as we know them. No Euclidean geometry exists because the tools of its trade cannot be built. If you think that mathematicians are so deft that they can work these things through out of fluids; that there is no physical correspondence going on inside the mathematician's brain; well, if I showed you an escapee would you insist that he goes back to the asylum?
> > > >
> > > > The very issue of heat even as a kinetic form fails in the solid state. Entropy seems to fail here as well; as a perfectly unique and patterned snow flake coalesces from the tail of a comet, or at least I fancy it this way. More readily falling from the sky on certain portions of the Earth at this moment. To state that crystalline structures are low entropy seems like stuffing a sock into ones mouth. Without them we get nowhere.
> > > >
> > > > To me high temperature is low entropy, and low temperature is high entropy. And upon engaging the crystalline form, what of the remarkably slow propagation of heat energy? When you can ding one end of a bar of silicon, say, and the sound comes out almost immediately at the other end, then you touch a blow torch to the end and wait an hour to see a tiny rise at the other end. Maybe get a second canister of propane and a cup of coffee, and finally a gently and barely discernible change in the thermometer occurs. You check the wall thermometer, and sure enough it rose more than the silicon did, and you scratch your head, sipping the coffee, wishing it was a little sweeter. What a beautiful system modern theory is. The kinetic theory of heat reigns supreme, and solid state physics and its anions of pluralons which are needed to cover this present situation are deeply felt.
> > > >
> > > > So as we puzzle over distance, and the tools required to measure distance, and we see the stage in the progression that we are actually at, what we witness is just how far behind theory lags from experiment. Then curve fitting becomes what is known as theory, and the divorce of physics from philosophy accelerates. Logic can be left behind. Throw in some government funding for these fish to chase and who knows what will come back. Some barely repeatable physics at some critical temperature and condition could explain the strangeness of current events around us now. It is too easy to settle back onto ape status, and the deep state guides us there every step of the way. Resistance futile? Read Gandhi.
> > > How does dimension of the universe go away?
> > > Why would moving in space take away space?
> > > No. Space contraction could only be an appearance.
> > > In the case of space travel slow time makes
> > > an appearance travelling through a larger distance.
> > How it has arisen at all is sort of the unspeakable puzzle amongst both physicists and mathematicians.
> > It used to be that the graviton was going to yield the spacetime basis, but that doesn't seem to have happened.
> > Gee, could there be something wrong with the math?
> > Like, with regard to geometry is everything built from the line?
> > Let's see, now, there was R, and then there was RxR, and then RxRxR, RxRxRxR, RxRxRxRxR;
> > and about there was Klein wasn't it? Before that Einstein, and before that Maxwell, and as to who set up that plane that way it certainly was not Rene Descartes, for he did not even abide the real line. Hmmmm... let's see, is there some sign here of what's gone wrong?
> > A duel amongst duals?
> > The fully unfolded form is where dimensional collapse occurs. Two slender rays can beget the life of the plane in a limited way, but bring them all the way open to the balanced form and you'll be needing a third. That 's the polysign way. You'll get your emergent spacetime in short order. As if that wasn't good enough you've got to trouble over the folded forms as well.... they are awfully pretty, and petty, you could say, as they bubble up and branch from naught. As to whether you fit the one into the other, as if a basis wasn't a basis at all, and in your form your access to it is perfect.... wrongly so, sir.
> >
> > And then again, the society that we live in, from first principle, insists on wiping away all detail in order to declare space consistent. Now there is a sensible start to things. It's no wonder the thing has turned into a blunder. You see the big dipper up there in the sky? Why, that is not structure, sir. Wipe it away. This from a race of near babboons who cannot get past their real line. I suppose it will happen in time, and hopefully a few of my nasty notes on the deep state of the past will remain. I suppose as ants form their larger society so do humans. It is to say that there is a super-organism that essentially eats itself. It is the unfortunate state of humans. Honestly, this form of identity I thought to be ideal, of course that is relative to the subsetting that leads to the blood letting. This form of globalism is not at all what is being taught. The sheer fraud in the human race is just simply one blunder after another. Ah, I see, and as a good game of chess is mainly played in the avoidance of mistakes, which by the way makes the game quite dull and boring from my unmasterful perspective, and especially my American perspective, well, I lose. It is where the new cheese which need not compete with the old cheeses was fabricated. Football needn't be played, especially not the old way where we might lose to other more experienced players. I'm amazed we never came up with our own rules for chess... oh, you say we did? When Godzilla plays chess, watch out...
> > especially with that broken arm.
> What can fold space? Is there not a smaller inside a larger after?

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:24:39 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:46:16 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 5:52:12 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 7:00:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:33:24 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > > > > > > > > the old larger...?
> > > > > > > > > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > > > > > > > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > > > > > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > > > > > > > > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > > > > > > > > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > > > > > > > > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> > > > > > > > Two for the price of one...
> > > > > > > > Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.
> > > > > > > I don't think this model begets the modulo form of space very well. It can be made to, but it's quite a loaded series of choices. Considering firstly the simplest xy sector, and a ray emanating from an (x,y) position in that sector, heading toward some other point (x1,y1) in that sector, then hitting the side... and then what? What exactly is the proper modulo space to do here? Did we already restrict to diametrical form?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scenario: at (1,1) a ray emanates toward (0,2) in a sector of thirty degrees. No diametrical restriction is in use. If this ray were then to emanate from the (2,0) position we would affect the modulo condition of the space wrapping back onto itself. At this point we might simply wrap that sector into a cone but for our ability to coordinate positions via this method. What is the meaning of this? The distinction between the x and the y systems is somewhat gone, and I think that is a good thing. To what degree is the cone detail an interpretation and to what degree is that interpretation imposing the 3D physical space that we exist in onto a supposedly pure fundamental form? By an argument of locality I think I can ignore the puzzle of a ray hitting the origin; we are out somewhere on this thing, and haven't we at least diminished the sense of it having an edge? To arbitrarily plop down an origin in our locality on this planar surface and throw it some sort of an RxR reference is fine I suppose. As to whether this procedure is general dimensional... I don't think so, but dimensional trickery is partly what I am admitting that I face in all of this construction. Just the fact that we happily visualize this pure sector meeting this cone requirement; I can't just do that in the next stage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As to physical effects of a folding space it would be good to study the ray trace that returns, and that happens to be the diametrical trace. If we allow say a thousand light years for this then how are we going to be worrying about it at all? If we observe our own transmission might it just be a repeater? Periodicity should appear at some point in the cosmological observations, but periodicity with evolution, and now that tau of diameter could possibly be derived. As to redundancy; this part is well established. So much so that we could claim support for this modulo theory of space.
> > > > > > I have another question. Where does distance go away to
> > > > > > and how can it come back by slowing back down?
> > > > > Distance goes away at the speed of light. So the photon is responsible for collapsing distance, at least according to relativity theory. And yet it still keeps its measuring rod; its wavelength; intact. Chargeless, massless, energetic, zero dimensional in its own reference frame, is it so in every frame? By redshift it is not. Does it really even oscillate? A particle? I don't feel anywhere near to reinventing the photon, but physicists have moved pretty far away from the electromagnetic interpretation of them..
> > > > >
> > > > > Back in the folding space, isn't it true that the effect is global? Geeze, that terminology is not exactly clean. Should I say universal? If we existed in a little bit of a differentially unfolded space; pretty far away from the origin, and even diametrically isolated from its issues in a subdimension that would have four originated components as in the YxY unified unfolding, to keep things static anyways, though the symmetry of that Cartesian product just there is as suspect as any other, what I mean to point out is that if this space were fluctuating in its exterior metric we would not be feeling it as its emergent byproducts. Our measuring rods will be fluctuating in the space. Their conservation is apt as a topic, and that the atom alone even is not enough, let alone the photon, for we need extended solids that occur only in our temperate zone to even beget this dimensional description of the space we inhabit. This is to say that at high temperature no measuring rods exist as we know them. No Euclidean geometry exists because the tools of its trade cannot be built. If you think that mathematicians are so deft that they can work these things through out of fluids; that there is no physical correspondence going on inside the mathematician's brain; well, if I showed you an escapee would you insist that he goes back to the asylum?
> > > > >
> > > > > The very issue of heat even as a kinetic form fails in the solid state. Entropy seems to fail here as well; as a perfectly unique and patterned snow flake coalesces from the tail of a comet, or at least I fancy it this way. More readily falling from the sky on certain portions of the Earth at this moment. To state that crystalline structures are low entropy seems like stuffing a sock into ones mouth. Without them we get nowhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > To me high temperature is low entropy, and low temperature is high entropy. And upon engaging the crystalline form, what of the remarkably slow propagation of heat energy? When you can ding one end of a bar of silicon, say, and the sound comes out almost immediately at the other end, then you touch a blow torch to the end and wait an hour to see a tiny rise at the other end. Maybe get a second canister of propane and a cup of coffee, and finally a gently and barely discernible change in the thermometer occurs. You check the wall thermometer, and sure enough it rose more than the silicon did, and you scratch your head, sipping the coffee, wishing it was a little sweeter. What a beautiful system modern theory is. The kinetic theory of heat reigns supreme, and solid state physics and its anions of pluralons which are needed to cover this present situation are deeply felt.
> > > > >
> > > > > So as we puzzle over distance, and the tools required to measure distance, and we see the stage in the progression that we are actually at, what we witness is just how far behind theory lags from experiment. Then curve fitting becomes what is known as theory, and the divorce of physics from philosophy accelerates. Logic can be left behind. Throw in some government funding for these fish to chase and who knows what will come back. Some barely repeatable physics at some critical temperature and condition could explain the strangeness of current events around us now. It is too easy to settle back onto ape status, and the deep state guides us there every step of the way. Resistance futile? Read Gandhi.
> > > > How does dimension of the universe go away?
> > > > Why would moving in space take away space?
> > > > No. Space contraction could only be an appearance.
> > > > In the case of space travel slow time makes
> > > > an appearance travelling through a larger distance.
> > > How it has arisen at all is sort of the unspeakable puzzle amongst both physicists and mathematicians.
> > > It used to be that the graviton was going to yield the spacetime basis, but that doesn't seem to have happened.
> > > Gee, could there be something wrong with the math?
> > > Like, with regard to geometry is everything built from the line?
> > > Let's see, now, there was R, and then there was RxR, and then RxRxR, RxRxRxR, RxRxRxRxR;
> > > and about there was Klein wasn't it? Before that Einstein, and before that Maxwell, and as to who set up that plane that way it certainly was not Rene Descartes, for he did not even abide the real line. Hmmmm... let's see, is there some sign here of what's gone wrong?
> > > A duel amongst duals?
> > > The fully unfolded form is where dimensional collapse occurs. Two slender rays can beget the life of the plane in a limited way, but bring them all the way open to the balanced form and you'll be needing a third. That 's the polysign way. You'll get your emergent spacetime in short order. As if that wasn't good enough you've got to trouble over the folded forms as well... they are awfully pretty, and petty, you could say, as they bubble up and branch from naught. As to whether you fit the one into the other, as if a basis wasn't a basis at all, and in your form your access to it is perfect... wrongly so, sir.
> > >
> > > And then again, the society that we live in, from first principle, insists on wiping away all detail in order to declare space consistent. Now there is a sensible start to things. It's no wonder the thing has turned into a blunder. You see the big dipper up there in the sky? Why, that is not structure, sir. Wipe it away. This from a race of near babboons who cannot get past their real line. I suppose it will happen in time, and hopefully a few of my nasty notes on the deep state of the past will remain. I suppose as ants form their larger society so do humans. It is to say that there is a super-organism that essentially eats itself. It is the unfortunate state of humans. Honestly, this form of identity I thought to be ideal, of course that is relative to the subsetting that leads to the blood letting. This form of globalism is not at all what is being taught. The sheer fraud in the human race is just simply one blunder after another. Ah, I see, and as a good game of chess is mainly played in the avoidance of mistakes, which by the way makes the game quite dull and boring from my unmasterful perspective, and especially my American perspective, well, I lose. It is where the new cheese which need not compete with the old cheeses was fabricated. Football needn't be played, especially not the old way where we might lose to other more experienced players. I'm amazed we never came up with our own rules for chess... oh, you say we did? When Godzilla plays chess, watch out...
> > > especially with that broken arm.
> > What can fold space? Is there not a smaller inside a larger after?
> I think its more backward than that. Suppose with a clap of your hand that you could unfold a bit of space. Take your two hands and put them together flat, then open them from the heel of your hand. You see? You've created a little space there. But perhaps your question is good then. What if the space naturally wants to fold back to naught? All the way down in this differential land things are going like a Lorentz transform; folding and folding and folding to ever smaller angle... but as elements of the space there is no problem. From the exterior we're getting squashed like bugs with some extrusion happening too. Sure, it's oversimplified, but I think it is a tempting model. The notion though that the exterior space meets our interior sensibilities is likely wrong. Now, on your second question: I would think that the clapping hands imparted some energy, but that energy returns to the exterior upon the interior space finally going to naught.
>
> The global human identity: that of realizing that we are members of the human race; rather than focusing on one sect or economy over another; this must be threatening to some who cling to their exclusive identity belief system. Yet clearly it is the correct solution. It is the truth. In support of this simplistic global human identity, hasn't it been proven that we are all out of Africa? That Africa is the ultimate homeland? And who treated Africans how? And prior to that their own indigenous populations? The idea that somebody else will have to resolve the issues of global identity: this is readily proven.
>
> Really, if all raiders headed for Ukraine now, and right up to the front lines, I think the world might be a better place.
> Go now, and show us what you are made of.

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 1:20:35 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:24:39 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 2:46:16 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 5:52:12 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:32:32 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 7:00:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:33:24 AM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:27:56 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > how can you have a new smaller space in
> > > > > > > > > > > the old larger...?
> > > > > > > > > > > Motion does not make universal dimension go away.
> > > > > > > > > > > Its Dimension is expanding instead.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > > > > > > Actually, if you are willing to unfold space, then you can engage dimension as well. Consider two rays superposed over each other, and then consider them unfolding just a little bit; say a half of a degree.. This established a primitive two dimensional sector. But you see our vision is of us unfolding this thin in our ordinary 3D space, and this is not appropriate if this is a fundamental form. As such, it may be possible to relax this a bit by tying the space back onto itself at its edges. This then takes the interpretation of a modulo space. When you move off of one side you return to the other. Nicely enough we have a sort of space that unfolds from naught, becomes dimensional, can unfold more dimensions, but I think I'm still seeing it as if it is doing all of this in ordinary space and that isn't good enough. When we derive ordinary space from such a construction will we be on a diameter in it? Then that will have four rays that have unfolded to beget our 3D sensibility, constrained on that diameter, time perhaps being the gradual increment of that diameter.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > One interesting part of this interpretation is that it looks a lot like YxY space, if you allow the unfold to unfold again. In effect rather than claiming an n-ary unfolding we literally require the sector unfold as the the second stage; doubling itself. In one regard this fits modern theory:
> > > > > > > > > > 2 - 1 = 1 : the real line (though diametrical in this system)
> > > > > > > > > > (2)(2) - 1 = 3 : ordinary physical space sensibility, though diametrical.
> > > > > > > > > > (2)(2)(2) - 1 = 7 : why stop? we'd really like an endpoint here.
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps there is room for an 'oxiom' here: You can double twice. This is an oxymoronic axiom.
> > > > > > > > > Two for the price of one...
> > > > > > > > > Under this oxiom no breakpoint would be needed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It should be pointed out, too, that upon unfolding those two rays to their fullest extent you'll have the real line. So in some regards as dimension is a concept tied currently to the real line, which these rays break, there could still be some recovery. This gets you slightly closer to polysign as well with each ray having a component which don't go balanced until they are balanced, which means they sum to zero.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Other strange things that can be done in sectors: because they can be arbitrarily small we can pack as many of them as we'd like around say, pi radians. In general dimensional terms it is then possible to simply keep pumping out sectors per 'dimension' versus the previous dimensions. For instance, if your first two rays are 'x' and 'y', you can reuse the 'y' and put a 'z' next to it, and then to complete the plot you put an 'x' to the other side of the 'z', so that an xy sector, a yz sector, and a xz sector result. A point in xyz takes its representation as three points in this diagram. Growing the dimensions to four, then five gets interesting. Strange patterns occur, but this is the result of reusing the rays. So general dimensional representation can occur in the plane, so long as you are willing to forgo negative coordinates; something Descartes would have approved of...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe energetically speaking there could be some cause to inter-relate these. Technically, if these were differential in some grander scheme then we'd be getting space from nothing, or nearly so. To give a cost to the first unfold, say, then maybe some finite form could be declared with finite energy. That does seem more secure than being caught in a microunfold that just might fold up again. Either way I suppose we are meaningless within this system. Still, if we got to three because two times two minus one is three I'd like to know.
> > > > > > > > I don't think this model begets the modulo form of space very well. It can be made to, but it's quite a loaded series of choices. Considering firstly the simplest xy sector, and a ray emanating from an (x,y) position in that sector, heading toward some other point (x1,y1) in that sector, then hitting the side... and then what? What exactly is the proper modulo space to do here? Did we already restrict to diametrical form?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scenario: at (1,1) a ray emanates toward (0,2) in a sector of thirty degrees. No diametrical restriction is in use. If this ray were then to emanate from the (2,0) position we would affect the modulo condition of the space wrapping back onto itself. At this point we might simply wrap that sector into a cone but for our ability to coordinate positions via this method. What is the meaning of this? The distinction between the x and the y systems is somewhat gone, and I think that is a good thing. To what degree is the cone detail an interpretation and to what degree is that interpretation imposing the 3D physical space that we exist in onto a supposedly pure fundamental form? By an argument of locality I think I can ignore the puzzle of a ray hitting the origin; we are out somewhere on this thing, and haven't we at least diminished the sense of it having an edge? To arbitrarily plop down an origin in our locality on this planar surface and throw it some sort of an RxR reference is fine I suppose. As to whether this procedure is general dimensional... I don't think so, but dimensional trickery is partly what I am admitting that I face in all of this construction. Just the fact that we happily visualize this pure sector meeting this cone requirement; I can't just do that in the next stage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As to physical effects of a folding space it would be good to study the ray trace that returns, and that happens to be the diametrical trace. If we allow say a thousand light years for this then how are we going to be worrying about it at all? If we observe our own transmission might it just be a repeater? Periodicity should appear at some point in the cosmological observations, but periodicity with evolution, and now that tau of diameter could possibly be derived. As to redundancy; this part is well established. So much so that we could claim support for this modulo theory of space.
> > > > > > > I have another question. Where does distance go away to
> > > > > > > and how can it come back by slowing back down?
> > > > > > Distance goes away at the speed of light. So the photon is responsible for collapsing distance, at least according to relativity theory. And yet it still keeps its measuring rod; its wavelength; intact. Chargeless, massless, energetic, zero dimensional in its own reference frame, is it so in every frame? By redshift it is not. Does it really even oscillate? A particle? I don't feel anywhere near to reinventing the photon, but physicists have moved pretty far away from the electromagnetic interpretation of them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Back in the folding space, isn't it true that the effect is global? Geeze, that terminology is not exactly clean. Should I say universal? If we existed in a little bit of a differentially unfolded space; pretty far away from the origin, and even diametrically isolated from its issues in a subdimension that would have four originated components as in the YxY unified unfolding, to keep things static anyways, though the symmetry of that Cartesian product just there is as suspect as any other, what I mean to point out is that if this space were fluctuating in its exterior metric we would not be feeling it as its emergent byproducts. Our measuring rods will be fluctuating in the space. Their conservation is apt as a topic, and that the atom alone even is not enough, let alone the photon, for we need extended solids that occur only in our temperate zone to even beget this dimensional description of the space we inhabit. This is to say that at high temperature no measuring rods exist as we know them. No Euclidean geometry exists because the tools of its trade cannot be built. If you think that mathematicians are so deft that they can work these things through out of fluids; that there is no physical correspondence going on inside the mathematician's brain; well, if I showed you an escapee would you insist that he goes back to the asylum?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The very issue of heat even as a kinetic form fails in the solid state. Entropy seems to fail here as well; as a perfectly unique and patterned snow flake coalesces from the tail of a comet, or at least I fancy it this way. More readily falling from the sky on certain portions of the Earth at this moment. To state that crystalline structures are low entropy seems like stuffing a sock into ones mouth. Without them we get nowhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To me high temperature is low entropy, and low temperature is high entropy. And upon engaging the crystalline form, what of the remarkably slow propagation of heat energy? When you can ding one end of a bar of silicon, say, and the sound comes out almost immediately at the other end, then you touch a blow torch to the end and wait an hour to see a tiny rise at the other end. Maybe get a second canister of propane and a cup of coffee, and finally a gently and barely discernible change in the thermometer occurs. You check the wall thermometer, and sure enough it rose more than the silicon did, and you scratch your head, sipping the coffee, wishing it was a little sweeter. What a beautiful system modern theory is. The kinetic theory of heat reigns supreme, and solid state physics and its anions of pluralons which are needed to cover this present situation are deeply felt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So as we puzzle over distance, and the tools required to measure distance, and we see the stage in the progression that we are actually at, what we witness is just how far behind theory lags from experiment. Then curve fitting becomes what is known as theory, and the divorce of physics from philosophy accelerates. Logic can be left behind. Throw in some government funding for these fish to chase and who knows what will come back. Some barely repeatable physics at some critical temperature and condition could explain the strangeness of current events around us now. It is too easy to settle back onto ape status, and the deep state guides us there every step of the way. Resistance futile? Read Gandhi.
> > > > > How does dimension of the universe go away?
> > > > > Why would moving in space take away space?
> > > > > No. Space contraction could only be an appearance.
> > > > > In the case of space travel slow time makes
> > > > > an appearance travelling through a larger distance.
> > > > How it has arisen at all is sort of the unspeakable puzzle amongst both physicists and mathematicians.
> > > > It used to be that the graviton was going to yield the spacetime basis, but that doesn't seem to have happened.
> > > > Gee, could there be something wrong with the math?
> > > > Like, with regard to geometry is everything built from the line?
> > > > Let's see, now, there was R, and then there was RxR, and then RxRxR, RxRxRxR, RxRxRxRxR;
> > > > and about there was Klein wasn't it? Before that Einstein, and before that Maxwell, and as to who set up that plane that way it certainly was not Rene Descartes, for he did not even abide the real line. Hmmmm... let's see, is there some sign here of what's gone wrong?
> > > > A duel amongst duals?
> > > > The fully unfolded form is where dimensional collapse occurs. Two slender rays can beget the life of the plane in a limited way, but bring them all the way open to the balanced form and you'll be needing a third. That 's the polysign way. You'll get your emergent spacetime in short order. As if that wasn't good enough you've got to trouble over the folded forms as well... they are awfully pretty, and petty, you could say, as they bubble up and branch from naught. As to whether you fit the one into the other, as if a basis wasn't a basis at all, and in your form your access to it is perfect... wrongly so, sir.
> > > >
> > > > And then again, the society that we live in, from first principle, insists on wiping away all detail in order to declare space consistent. Now there is a sensible start to things. It's no wonder the thing has turned into a blunder. You see the big dipper up there in the sky? Why, that is not structure, sir. Wipe it away. This from a race of near babboons who cannot get past their real line. I suppose it will happen in time, and hopefully a few of my nasty notes on the deep state of the past will remain. I suppose as ants form their larger society so do humans. It is to say that there is a super-organism that essentially eats itself. It is the unfortunate state of humans. Honestly, this form of identity I thought to be ideal, of course that is relative to the subsetting that leads to the blood letting. This form of globalism is not at all what is being taught. The sheer fraud in the human race is just simply one blunder after another. Ah, I see, and as a good game of chess is mainly played in the avoidance of mistakes, which by the way makes the game quite dull and boring from my unmasterful perspective, and especially my American perspective, well, I lose. It is where the new cheese which need not compete with the old cheeses was fabricated. Football needn't be played, especially not the old way where we might lose to other more experienced players. I'm amazed we never came up with our own rules for chess... oh, you say we did? When Godzilla plays chess, watch out...
> > > > especially with that broken arm.
> > > What can fold space? Is there not a smaller inside a larger after?
> > I think its more backward than that. Suppose with a clap of your hand that you could unfold a bit of space. Take your two hands and put them together flat, then open them from the heel of your hand. You see? You've created a little space there. But perhaps your question is good then. What if the space naturally wants to fold back to naught? All the way down in this differential land things are going like a Lorentz transform; folding and folding and folding to ever smaller angle... but as elements of the space there is no problem. From the exterior we're getting squashed like bugs with some extrusion happening too. Sure, it's oversimplified, but I think it is a tempting model. The notion though that the exterior space meets our interior sensibilities is likely wrong. Now, on your second question: I would think that the clapping hands imparted some energy, but that energy returns to the exterior upon the interior space finally going to naught.
> >
> > The global human identity: that of realizing that we are members of the human race; rather than focusing on one sect or economy over another; this must be threatening to some who cling to their exclusive identity belief system. Yet clearly it is the correct solution. It is the truth. In support of this simplistic global human identity, hasn't it been proven that we are all out of Africa? That Africa is the ultimate homeland? And who treated Africans how? And prior to that their own indigenous populations? The idea that somebody else will have to resolve the issues of global identity: this is readily proven.
> >
> > Really, if all raiders headed for Ukraine now, and right up to the front lines, I think the world might be a better place.
> > Go now, and show us what you are made of.
> Space never goes away and time never stops.
> There is no BH gravity singularity ending of space time.
>
>
>
> Mitchell Raemsch