3D space has a 4D hypersphere boundary.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:14:08 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 3D space has a 4D hypersphere boundary.

Yep. It's good awareness.
The next variant of allowing in some variation in a constant radius is of interest as well.
Then some of Einstein's thinking seems more plausible.
The big bang seems more plausible.
I do not believe however that multiverse thinking is plausible.
It's one thing to state that our universe exists in such a bubble
but it is entirely another to claim that it is ever branching into an obnoxious infinitude so far beyond any mathematical state,
all the while obeying conservation principles? No. They refuse to have that discussion.
The mind fuck that is multiverse thinking is a fraud on humanity.
That humans willingly go along that pursuit... it is too easy to entertain dark theories here.
Much easier to expose the weakness of the human mind.

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 7:49:27 AM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:14:08 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 3D space has a 4D hypersphere boundary.
> Yep. It's good awareness.
> The next variant of allowing in some variation in a constant radius is of interest as well.
> Then some of Einstein's thinking seems more plausible.
> The big bang seems more plausible.
> I do not believe however that multiverse thinking is plausible.
> It's one thing to state that our universe exists in such a bubble
> but it is entirely another to claim that it is ever branching into an obnoxious infinitude so far beyond any mathematical state,
> all the while obeying conservation principles? No. They refuse to have that discussion.
> The mind fuck that is multiverse thinking is a fraud on humanity.
> That humans willingly go along that pursuit... it is too easy to entertain dark theories here.
> Much easier to expose the weakness of the human mind.

Ahh, Mitch. You are so on in the fundamentals.
You are a strange sort of orb in this jungle.
You really have stayed consistent all these years.
Always so short and never selfish.
While I sell fish here daily.
I rant and I rave
it's a constant craze
And your points lay nearby my own.
If you could please just push a little harder for polysign.
You see the modulo and its power to dance.
That general dimension is upon us in a new and pure way
needs more than just I saying so.
Of course I need a true believer.
And that is what I will make of you.
I've made Zelos a whipping boy here many times over.
But he is status quo.
You really are the right sort to take on an independent study in polysign number theory.
Really all will be invited but I invite you first.
Thanks Mitch for being here and speaking clearly on issues that others can only parrot the status quo answers onto and up to and never beyond nor freely nor loosely even. You are wise to keep to your simplistic approach. I promise if you take it up on polysign you will find it. It will be both general and to the point or at least to the ray. Somehow the ray takes on all dimension. For instance thought P1 is such a primitive and decrepit device its unidirectional nature is the first ray. Yet it merely lays in a family of such. It has been overlooked. You see as you complain and insist upon a non-signed value, and I am actually all for this as I use sx in my own theories. Without the x the s really has nothing to work with. If you wanted you could pose the general dimensional integers as these, yet they would immediately become general dimensional as the 2 and the 3 are completely free of each other under a first product:
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P0
Yet should I have stopped at P2? P1? P3? P4? P5? P6 looks so good!

Honestly, I besMitch you that advanced mathematics comes out better in polysign. Algebraic Geometry? Please I Am Algebraic Geometry.

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 7:49:27 AM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:14:08 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 3D space has a 4D hypersphere boundary.
> Yep. It's good awareness.
> The next variant of allowing in some variation in a constant radius is of interest as well.
> Then some of Einstein's thinking seems more plausible.
> The big bang seems more plausible.
> I do not believe however that multiverse thinking is plausible.
> It's one thing to state that our universe exists in such a bubble
> but it is entirely another to claim that it is ever branching into an obnoxious infinitude so far beyond any mathematical state,
> all the while obeying conservation principles? No. They refuse to have that discussion.
> The mind fuck that is multiverse thinking is a fraud on humanity.
> That humans willingly go along that pursuit... it is too easy to entertain dark theories here.
> Much easier to expose the weakness of the human mind.

Blah Blah blah blah blah-bla-bla Bla blablabla.

to which I reply: "Your abstractions sir have failed to procure a general dimensional stance from the get-go."
oh and it goes on from there. Ten times over, under, in P3; P4; on and on and along way there is very fair one known to us as P6 though this name is like a misnomer for her symmetries are much more.