How to put new dimension into standard (3+1) dimensions
of the Minkowski space-time of special relativity ?

(The metrics of Minkowski sapace-time is
ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 ,
for coordinates (c*t, x, y, z),
where x,y,z are real numbers
and t > 0 is also real number,
c = the speed of light in vacuum)

Requirement for this new (5D ?)space:
physical mass is complex number
m = m1 + i*m2,
where, m is complex number and
m1, m2 are real numbers and i = sqrt(-1) = imaginary unit.

My posting related to this question is due
I got three numerical values of solutions of electron mass,
(one root is real root and two roots are complex conjugates),
this posting chain of mine is recently in google group
sci.physics.relativity.

Please take a look.

Best Regards,

Hannu Poropudas
Kolamäentie 9E,
90900 Kiiminki / Oulu
Finland

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:01:01 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> How to put new dimension into standard (3+1) dimensions
> of the Minkowski space-time of special relativity ?
>
> (The metrics of Minkowski sapace-time is
> ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 ,
> for coordinates (c*t, x, y, z),
> where x,y,z are real numbers
> and t > 0 is also real number,
> c = the speed of light in vacuum)
>
> Requirement for this new (5D ?)space:
> physical mass is complex number
> m = m1 + i*m2,
> where, m is complex number and
> m1, m2 are real numbers and i = sqrt(-1) = imaginary unit.
>
> My posting related to this question is due
> I got three numerical values of solutions of electron mass,
> (one root is real root and two roots are complex conjugates),
> this posting chain of mine is recently in google group
> sci.physics.relativity.
>
> Please take a look.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Hannu Poropudas
> Kolamäentie 9E,
> 90900 Kiiminki / Oulu
> Finland

But the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. And the real electron of atoms is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law going around 8 rings of the proton.

So your work Hannu, is all for nothing.

On 10/12/2021 11:00, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> How to put new dimension into standard (3+1) dimensions
> of the Minkowski space-time of special relativity ?
>
> (The metrics of Minkowski sapace-time is
> ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 ,
> for coordinates (c*t, x, y, z),
> where x,y,z are real numbers
> and t > 0 is also real number,
> c = the speed of light in vacuum)
>
> Requirement for this new (5D ?)space:
> physical mass is complex number
> m = m1 + i*m2,
> where, m is complex number and
> m1, m2 are real numbers and i = sqrt(-1) = imaginary unit.
>
> My posting related to this question is due
> I got three numerical values of solutions of electron mass,
> (one root is real root and two roots are complex conjugates),
> this posting chain of mine is recently in google group
> sci.physics.relativity.
>
> Please take a look.

My 2c, I am not an expert:

The time dimension can already be considered imaginary (*), at least
with the signature -+++ (of course, it also all works with opposite
signs and saying that the space dimension is imaginary, but then adding
dimensions to space is just not the same thing...). Mass instead is
"just" the proportionality factor of 4-momentum to 4-velocity. So, if
you want more imaginary, I think you could try with an additional time
dimension.

That said, from the top of my head I have no idea what mathematical
structure you'd actually get, how it works and what it adds if anything...

Julio

(*) Taking the 1+1D case with signature -+ and c=1, the time dimension
is imaginary in the sense that the line element is ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2,
which, for a purely time-like path, becomes ds^2 = -dt^2, which, by
taking square roots, gives the "imaginary spacial" distance |ds| =
|idt|. in fact, in this sense, it is "distance" itself that is complex.

See also Complex Minkowski spacetime:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#Complex_Minkowski_spacetime>

Julio

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 2:01:01 AM UTC-8, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> How to put new dimension into standard (3+1) dimensions
> of the Minkowski space-time of special relativity ?
>
> (The metrics of Minkowski sapace-time is
> ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 ,
> for coordinates (c*t, x, y, z),
> where x,y,z are real numbers
> and t > 0 is also real number,
> c = the speed of light in vacuum)
>
> Requirement for this new (5D ?)space:
> physical mass is complex number
> m = m1 + i*m2,
> where, m is complex number and
> m1, m2 are real numbers and i = sqrt(-1) = imaginary unit.
>
> My posting related to this question is due
> I got three numerical values of solutions of electron mass,
> (one root is real root and two roots are complex conjugates),
> this posting chain of mine is recently in google group
> sci.physics.relativity.
>
> Please take a look.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Hannu Poropudas
> Kolamäentie 9E,
> 90900 Kiiminki / Oulu
> Finland

Gravity is round; dimension is flat...
Einstein curved space is with his flat metric.

Mitchell Raemsch

perjantai 10. joulukuuta 2021 klo 19.17.01 UTC+2 ju...@diegidio.name kirjoitti:
> On 10/12/2021 11:00, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > How to put new dimension into standard (3+1) dimensions
> > of the Minkowski space-time of special relativity ?
> >
> > (The metrics of Minkowski sapace-time is
> > ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 ,
> > for coordinates (c*t, x, y, z),
> > where x,y,z are real numbers
> > and t > 0 is also real number,
> > c = the speed of light in vacuum)
> >
> > Requirement for this new (5D ?)space:
> > physical mass is complex number
> > m = m1 + i*m2,
> > where, m is complex number and
> > m1, m2 are real numbers and i = sqrt(-1) = imaginary unit.
> >
> > My posting related to this question is due
> > I got three numerical values of solutions of electron mass,
> > (one root is real root and two roots are complex conjugates),
> > this posting chain of mine is recently in google group
> > sci.physics.relativity.
> >
> > Please take a look.
> My 2c, I am not an expert:
>
> The time dimension can already be considered imaginary (*), at least
> with the signature -+++ (of course, it also all works with opposite
> signs and saying that the space dimension is imaginary, but then adding
> dimensions to space is just not the same thing...). Mass instead is
> "just" the proportionality factor of 4-momentum to 4-velocity. So, if
> you want more imaginary, I think you could try with an additional time
> dimension.
>
> That said, from the top of my head I have no idea what mathematical
> structure you'd actually get, how it works and what it adds if anything...
>
> Julio
>
> (*) Taking the 1+1D case with signature -+ and c=1, the time dimension
> is imaginary in the sense that the line element is ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2,
> which, for a purely time-like path, becomes ds^2 = -dt^2, which, by
> taking square roots, gives the "imaginary spacial" distance |ds| =
> |idt|. in fact, in this sense, it is "distance" itself that is complex.
>
> See also Complex Minkowski spacetime:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#Complex_Minkowski_spacetime>
>
> Julio

It is an idea of projective relativity theory that "replace point by plane" and see what
kind of version you get from 5-dimesional general relativity ?

It could be also said in a form "replace point by complex number" and
see what kind of version you get from flat Minkowski space-time ?

It is worth to take a look if you get 5-dimesional flat geometry from above Wikipedia
reference of complex Minkowski space-time which you gave ?

Hannu Poropudas

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 5:23:12 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> It is an idea of projective relativity theory that "replace point by plane" and see what
> kind of version you get from 5-dimesional general relativity ?
>
> It could be also said in a form "replace point by complex number" and
> see what kind of version you get from flat Minkowski space-time ?
>
> It is worth to take a look if you get 5-dimesional flat geometry from above Wikipedia
> reference of complex Minkowski space-time which you gave ?
>
> Hannu Poropudas

I think your daughter made a better scientist than you Hannu, back in the 1990s when you posted her "Space Potatoes". At least she (pardon me if a he) had some grip on reality-- a potato.

But it seems that you Hannu has no grip on any sort of physical reality-- like the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce once exclaimed-- just a wound up ball of yarn in a gigantic knot.

maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 0.59.58 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 5:23:12 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > It is an idea of projective relativity theory that "replace point by plane" and see what
> > kind of version you get from 5-dimesional general relativity ?
> >
> > It could be also said in a form "replace point by complex number" and
> > see what kind of version you get from flat Minkowski space-time ?
> >
> > It is worth to take a look if you get 5-dimesional flat geometry from above Wikipedia
> > reference of complex Minkowski space-time which you gave ?
> >
> > Hannu Poropudas
> I think your daughter made a better scientist than you Hannu, back in the 1990s when you posted her "Space Potatoes". At least she (pardon me if a he) had some grip on reality-- a potato.
>
> But it seems that you Hannu has no grip on any sort of physical reality-- like the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce once exclaimed-- just a wound up ball of yarn in a gigantic knot.

I remember you back in the 1990 when you posted numerously into many sci.* groups.

If you want to take a look H-M's one oldest drawing dated 1992. This H-M's old color drawing and her other old color drawings are published and made public few years ago
in my Facebook page (Google finds it by words "Hannu Poropudas Facebook").

This old H-M's drawing represents (my interpretation) Galaxy in center of which
is 8/8-cut neutrino matter diamond. Also that one neutrino matter particle called
space-potato is drawed in the same drawing.

My markings (words or short sentences) on this and other drawings are made
Finnish language but with help Google those words can be translated into English.

I think that at the I'am the only researcher of these old H-M's drawings?

Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.

Best Regards,
Hannu Poropudas

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
>
> Best Regards,
> Hannu Poropudas

Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.

Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.

Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.

Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.

And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.

Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.

Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.

Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.

In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.

So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.

maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 21.36.54 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hannu Poropudas
> Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.
>
> Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.
>
> Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.
>
> Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.
>
> And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.
>
> Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.
>
> So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.

Yes, Theory of surfaces of second degree is not very simple.
Einstein et al. used simplified basic assumptions which
must be taken into account when dealing their theories.

See for example

Reference:

Bronshtein-Semendyayev, 1973.
A Guide Book to Mathematics.
Springer Verlag.
Printed in Germany.
783 pages. pp. 270-275 and pp. 275-276.
Surfaces of the second degree (canonical equations)
pp. 270-275.
Surfaces of the second degree (general theory).
pp. 275-276.

Hannu Poropudas

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:41:01 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 21.36.54 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Hannu Poropudas
> > Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.
> >
> > Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.
> >
> > Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.
> >
> > Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.
> >
> > And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.
> >
> > Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> >
> > Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> >
> > Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> >
> > In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.
> >
> > So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.
> Yes, Theory of surfaces of second degree is not very simple.
> Einstein et al. used simplified basic assumptions which
> must be taken into account when dealing their theories.
>
> See for example
>
> Reference:
>
> Bronshtein-Semendyayev, 1973.
> A Guide Book to Mathematics.
> Springer Verlag.
> Printed in Germany.
> 783 pages. pp. 270-275 and pp. 275-276.
> Surfaces of the second degree (canonical equations)
> pp. 270-275.
> Surfaces of the second degree (general theory).
> pp. 275-276.
>
> Hannu Poropudas

I believe you want to research Klein.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7780

Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory

In my own recollection Einstein did meet with Klein and Klein worked independently on a 5D version.
I pull a vacuum on Kaluza though.
That said emag comes into supposedly clean 6D versions.
I don't claim a complete understanding of those positions but am aware of them.
To what degree electricity and magnetism are distinct concepts versus unified I view as an open problem still.
This is not the status quo position, however.

I am growing in favor of a form of analysis I call interdimensional analysis. It seems no matter where we look dimensional creep exists.
Even in the sum: mathematicians claim that the operator exists on RxR and yields R. What a joke. Are we going to take every integral is infinite dimensional? Are the quants claiming just that in their 'configuration space'?

There was an old man who walked the floor with a can of oil and meekly touched every shaft of the plant. When he died; and of course the filers were replaced years before; the men in the office were none the wiser.

No: the gears were crushed long ago and the machine spins on.
We are living in fictitious times, sir.
The skills of the men in the 1800's far surpassed ours.
In the cacophony of specialties that have accrued lays a large pile to digest...

tiistai 14. joulukuuta 2021 klo 14.58.24 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:41:01 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 21.36.54 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.
> > >
> > > Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.
> > >
> > > Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.
> > >
> > > Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.
> > >
> > > And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.
> > >
> > > Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > >
> > > Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > >
> > > Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > >
> > > In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.
> > >
> > > So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.
> > Yes, Theory of surfaces of second degree is not very simple.
> > Einstein et al. used simplified basic assumptions which
> > must be taken into account when dealing their theories.
> >
> > See for example
> >
> > Reference:
> >
> > Bronshtein-Semendyayev, 1973.
> > A Guide Book to Mathematics.
> > Springer Verlag.
> > Printed in Germany.
> > 783 pages. pp. 270-275 and pp. 275-276.
> > Surfaces of the second degree (canonical equations)
> > pp. 270-275.
> > Surfaces of the second degree (general theory).
> > pp. 275-276.
> >
> > Hannu Poropudas
> I believe you want to research Klein.
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7780
>
> Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory
>
> In my own recollection Einstein did meet with Klein and Klein worked independently on a 5D version.
> I pull a vacuum on Kaluza though.
> That said emag comes into supposedly clean 6D versions.
> I don't claim a complete understanding of those positions but am aware of them.
> To what degree electricity and magnetism are distinct concepts versus unified I view as an open problem still.
> This is not the status quo position, however.
>
> I am growing in favor of a form of analysis I call interdimensional analysis. It seems no matter where we look dimensional creep exists.
> Even in the sum: mathematicians claim that the operator exists on RxR and yields R. What a joke. Are we going to take every integral is infinite dimensional? Are the quants claiming just that in their 'configuration space'?
>
> There was an old man who walked the floor with a can of oil and meekly touched every shaft of the plant. When he died; and of course the filers were replaced years before; the men in the office were none the wiser.
>
> No: the gears were crushed long ago and the machine spins on.
> We are living in fictitious times, sir.
> The skills of the men in the 1800's far surpassed ours.
> In the cacophony of specialties that have accrued lays a large pile to digest...

No, I don't want to make this new fifth dimension with the electromagnetic
vector potential as was in your above reference.

I'am now thinking that could it be possible to make an embedding two spaces: A. space-time and B. mirror-space-time into C. five dimensional space.

C = A union B or C = A x B , I don't know which of these two set theoretic operations
should be usable here?

Properties of A and B are:
1. for both spaces time dimension would proceed same way as our familiar
time dimension.
2. mirror-space-time would contain invisible DARK MATTER (?), say for example
invisible right neutrino matter (right-handed neutrinos?) and these two complex
conjugates , H-M-electron (not same as our familiar electron?) and H-M-mirror-electron
(not same as our familiar positron?)
3. electron mass is only due expansion resistance of the Universe (H-M).

(in my experimental calculations (my recent posting in sci.physics.relativity,
where a kind of Stokes Law used is speculation of mine)

I found three solutions for mass of electron and three solutions of
radius of electron.

One real mass and one real radius (our familiar electron) and
two complex conjugate values of mass and two complex conjugate values of radius
(H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron).

Arguments of all these three solutions for both mass and radius
are 0 degrees (real case), 120 degrees and 240 degrees (complex conjugate cases).)

I peg you pardon, but I must distinguish different particles, and this is why
I gave names H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron for these new particles.

My problem is now how to geometrize these all for calculations
C (5 D invisible space?) and
A (3+1 D Minkowski space-time) and
B (3+1 D invisible mirror-Minkowski space-time) ?

Hannu Poropudas

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:32:40 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> tiistai 14. joulukuuta 2021 klo 14.58.24 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:41:01 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 21.36.54 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > > Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.
> > > >
> > > > Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.
> > > >
> > > > Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.
> > > >
> > > > Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.
> > > >
> > > > And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.
> > > >
> > > > Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > >
> > > > Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > >
> > > > Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.
> > > >
> > > > So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.
> > > Yes, Theory of surfaces of second degree is not very simple.
> > > Einstein et al. used simplified basic assumptions which
> > > must be taken into account when dealing their theories.
> > >
> > > See for example
> > >
> > > Reference:
> > >
> > > Bronshtein-Semendyayev, 1973.
> > > A Guide Book to Mathematics.
> > > Springer Verlag.
> > > Printed in Germany.
> > > 783 pages. pp. 270-275 and pp. 275-276.
> > > Surfaces of the second degree (canonical equations)
> > > pp. 270-275.
> > > Surfaces of the second degree (general theory).
> > > pp. 275-276.
> > >
> > > Hannu Poropudas
> > I believe you want to research Klein.
> >
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7780
> >
> > Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory
> >
> > In my own recollection Einstein did meet with Klein and Klein worked independently on a 5D version.
> > I pull a vacuum on Kaluza though.
> > That said emag comes into supposedly clean 6D versions.
> > I don't claim a complete understanding of those positions but am aware of them.
> > To what degree electricity and magnetism are distinct concepts versus unified I view as an open problem still.
> > This is not the status quo position, however.
> >
> > I am growing in favor of a form of analysis I call interdimensional analysis. It seems no matter where we look dimensional creep exists.
> > Even in the sum: mathematicians claim that the operator exists on RxR and yields R. What a joke. Are we going to take every integral is infinite dimensional? Are the quants claiming just that in their 'configuration space'?
> >
> > There was an old man who walked the floor with a can of oil and meekly touched every shaft of the plant. When he died; and of course the filers were replaced years before; the men in the office were none the wiser.
> >
> > No: the gears were crushed long ago and the machine spins on.
> > We are living in fictitious times, sir.
> > The skills of the men in the 1800's far surpassed ours.
> > In the cacophony of specialties that have accrued lays a large pile to digest...
> No, I don't want to make this new fifth dimension with the electromagnetic
> vector potential as was in your above reference.
>
> I'am now thinking that could it be possible to make an embedding two spaces: A. space-time and B. mirror-space-time into C. five dimensional space.
>
> C = A union B or C = A x B , I don't know which of these two set theoretic operations
> should be usable here?
>
> Properties of A and B are:
> 1. for both spaces time dimension would proceed same way as our familiar
> time dimension.
> 2. mirror-space-time would contain invisible DARK MATTER (?), say for example
> invisible right neutrino matter (right-handed neutrinos?) and these two complex
> conjugates , H-M-electron (not same as our familiar electron?) and H-M-mirror-electron
> (not same as our familiar positron?)
> 3. electron mass is only due expansion resistance of the Universe (H-M).
>
> (in my experimental calculations (my recent posting in sci.physics.relativity,
> where a kind of Stokes Law used is speculation of mine)
>
> I found three solutions for mass of electron and three solutions of
> radius of electron.
>
> One real mass and one real radius (our familiar electron) and
> two complex conjugate values of mass and two complex conjugate values of radius
> (H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron).
>
> Arguments of all these three solutions for both mass and radius
> are 0 degrees (real case), 120 degrees and 240 degrees (complex conjugate cases).)

Well that is very P3 of polysign, which are the complex numbers in a new suit.
Yeah, Stokes sounds good too.
One curious fact though is that your mirror electron and its original are indistinguishable.
So whether the plane deserves to be folded into a half plane deserves to be considered.
The MU and the anti-MU are somewhat ordinary though. In P4 we see:
* - = #
* # = *
* * = +
* + = -
so that the coverage is just as good as the original. To either side of NU lays a MU. The symmetry gets super-sloshed for the primes where powers of every sign can dance through the others... except the NU.

Maybe rather than get lost in the kaleidoscopic effects you need to just focus on one electron on one side for now. Yes, your theory can produce a pair, but without the fundamentals of the one, the pair is a mere distraction.
>
> I peg you pardon, but I must distinguish different particles, and this is why
> I gave names H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron for these new particles..
>
> My problem is now how to geometrize these all for calculations
> C (5 D invisible space?) and
> A (3+1 D Minkowski space-time) and
> B (3+1 D invisible mirror-Minkowski space-time) ?
>
> Hannu Poropudas

Hannu, suppose you had a rotor that could beget the unit vectors of your space as:
U ^ n
and that further when you need no more vectors this animal simply wraps around to your first vector again.
Well, pretty quickly you'll find generality in a family of these things so that you'll see a
U1, U2, U3, U4, ...
and of course you'd like a breakpoint right around four for spacetime correspondence. There is little doubt that U1 is unidirectional; time. U2 is bidirectional; the familiar bipolar types and of course real line thinking; the basis of Cartesian space, which incidentally Minkowski and Einstein and everybody else as far as I know have relied upon. Yet you see U3 is your complex plane, and it did not come as a buildup of U2. No. It is every bit as fundamental as U2 and U1. Three unit vectors make up the plane of your H-M theory (is that Hannu-Minkowski? if so this is a misnomer. Possibly you'll need to shift that to H-G.) just as two unit vectors made up U2. Ah, you say, U2 needs just one unit vector... and what about U1? As I see it if I could take you through polysign theory within your own theory, and we have nearly done it in a paragraph, you will land more cleanly.

Simply put the real numbers as a basis are fraudulent through their required use of the Cartesian product, which incidentally Descartes never made use of. I will not claim that the Cartesian product is broken, but that it is not fundamental. By what right can we insist upon two real lines, whose origins intersect exactly, and whose angles to one another are always ninety degrees, and claim these things to be independent of one another? We can leave them just there as a working representation, yet attack them as an invalid basis. Yet this is the basis of relativity theory, electromagnetics, etc... We know that time is a misfit. You yourself are insisting on something rather different in your electron plane. Witness your own unit vectors in sum. Zero? Yes. Witness the unit vectors of the real line in sum. Zero? Yes. This is how these systems come to be named polysign. We literally are generalizing sign:
- 1 + 1 = 0 (P2)
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 (P3)
- 1 + 1 * 1 # 1 = 0 (P4)
...
and of course I've left out P1 and its seemingly controversial behavior:
- 1 = 0 (P1)
yet these are graphical depictions; renderings; and time itself does render thus. The very term 'dimensional' is tied to the real line, which under polysign is a two-form. It happens to be quite accurate, so like the Cartesian product it can be respected yet not taken as fundamental to all. It almost looks as if I've raised the dimension of these systems by one, yet this is not the case. Every concrete instance can be resolved via the very zeros behaviors above which establish them. Take for instance in P2 a value such as:
- 3 + 5
and we see the resolution to + 2. Likewise in P3:
- 3 + 5 * 1 = - 2 + 4
and so in the reduced form we still have what could be called a two dimensional entity, yet the very terminology of 'dimension' is old-school here. We have broken into general dimensional mathematics via the generalization of sign, sir.

keskiviikko 15. joulukuuta 2021 klo 15.51.30 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:32:40 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > tiistai 14. joulukuuta 2021 klo 14.58.24 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> > > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:41:01 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 21.36.54 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > > Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > > > Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.
> > > > >
> > > > > Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.
> > > > >
> > > > > Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.
> > > > Yes, Theory of surfaces of second degree is not very simple.
> > > > Einstein et al. used simplified basic assumptions which
> > > > must be taken into account when dealing their theories.
> > > >
> > > > See for example
> > > >
> > > > Reference:
> > > >
> > > > Bronshtein-Semendyayev, 1973.
> > > > A Guide Book to Mathematics.
> > > > Springer Verlag.
> > > > Printed in Germany.
> > > > 783 pages. pp. 270-275 and pp. 275-276.
> > > > Surfaces of the second degree (canonical equations)
> > > > pp. 270-275.
> > > > Surfaces of the second degree (general theory).
> > > > pp. 275-276.
> > > >
> > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > I believe you want to research Klein.
> > >
> > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7780
> > >
> > > Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory
> > >
> > > In my own recollection Einstein did meet with Klein and Klein worked independently on a 5D version.
> > > I pull a vacuum on Kaluza though.
> > > That said emag comes into supposedly clean 6D versions.
> > > I don't claim a complete understanding of those positions but am aware of them.
> > > To what degree electricity and magnetism are distinct concepts versus unified I view as an open problem still.
> > > This is not the status quo position, however.
> > >
> > > I am growing in favor of a form of analysis I call interdimensional analysis. It seems no matter where we look dimensional creep exists.
> > > Even in the sum: mathematicians claim that the operator exists on RxR and yields R. What a joke. Are we going to take every integral is infinite dimensional? Are the quants claiming just that in their 'configuration space'?
> > >
> > > There was an old man who walked the floor with a can of oil and meekly touched every shaft of the plant. When he died; and of course the filers were replaced years before; the men in the office were none the wiser.
> > >
> > > No: the gears were crushed long ago and the machine spins on.
> > > We are living in fictitious times, sir.
> > > The skills of the men in the 1800's far surpassed ours.
> > > In the cacophony of specialties that have accrued lays a large pile to digest...
> > No, I don't want to make this new fifth dimension with the electromagnetic
> > vector potential as was in your above reference.
> >
> > I'am now thinking that could it be possible to make an embedding two spaces: A. space-time and B. mirror-space-time into C. five dimensional space..
> >
> > C = A union B or C = A x B , I don't know which of these two set theoretic operations
> > should be usable here?
> >
> > Properties of A and B are:
> > 1. for both spaces time dimension would proceed same way as our familiar
> > time dimension.
> > 2. mirror-space-time would contain invisible DARK MATTER (?), say for example
> > invisible right neutrino matter (right-handed neutrinos?) and these two complex
> > conjugates , H-M-electron (not same as our familiar electron?) and H-M-mirror-electron
> > (not same as our familiar positron?)
> > 3. electron mass is only due expansion resistance of the Universe (H-M)..
> >
> > (in my experimental calculations (my recent posting in sci.physics.relativity,
> > where a kind of Stokes Law used is speculation of mine)
> >
> > I found three solutions for mass of electron and three solutions of
> > radius of electron.
> >
> > One real mass and one real radius (our familiar electron) and
> > two complex conjugate values of mass and two complex conjugate values of radius
> > (H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron).
> >
> > Arguments of all these three solutions for both mass and radius
> > are 0 degrees (real case), 120 degrees and 240 degrees (complex conjugate cases).)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Well that is very P3 of polysign, which are the complex numbers in a new suit.
> Yeah, Stokes sounds good too.
> One curious fact though is that your mirror electron and its original are indistinguishable.
> So whether the plane deserves to be folded into a half plane deserves to be considered.
> The MU and the anti-MU are somewhat ordinary though. In P4 we see:
> * - = #
> * # = *
> * * = +
> * + = -
> so that the coverage is just as good as the original. To either side of NU lays a MU. The symmetry gets super-sloshed for the primes where powers of every sign can dance through the others... except the NU.
>
> Maybe rather than get lost in the kaleidoscopic effects you need to just focus on one electron on one side for now. Yes, your theory can produce a pair, but without the fundamentals of the one, the pair is a mere distraction.

You seems to me have some kind of new mathematical theory , if you have clear mathematically acceptable definitions
of everything (new concepts, letters etc. ) you used.
OR
You have a pseudo-mathematical theory, if you don't have clear mathematically acceptable definitions of everything
(new concepts, letters etc. ) you used ?

Hannu

> >
> > I peg you pardon, but I must distinguish different particles, and this is why
> > I gave names H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron for these new particles.
> >
> > My problem is now how to geometrize these all for calculations
> > C (5 D invisible space?) and
> > A (3+1 D Minkowski space-time) and
> > B (3+1 D invisible mirror-Minkowski space-time) ?
> >
> > Hannu Poropudas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hannu, suppose you had a rotor that could beget the unit vectors of your space as:
> U ^ n
> and that further when you need no more vectors this animal simply wraps around to your first vector again.
> Well, pretty quickly you'll find generality in a family of these things so that you'll see a
> U1, U2, U3, U4, ...
> and of course you'd like a breakpoint right around four for spacetime correspondence. There is little doubt that U1 is unidirectional; time. U2 is bidirectional; the familiar bipolar types and of course real line thinking; the basis of Cartesian space, which incidentally Minkowski and Einstein and everybody else as far as I know have relied upon. Yet you see U3 is your complex plane, and it did not come as a buildup of U2. No. It is every bit as fundamental as U2 and U1. Three unit vectors make up the plane of your H-M theory (is that Hannu-Minkowski? if so this is a misnomer. Possibly you'll need to shift that to H-G.) just as two unit vectors made up U2. Ah, you say, U2 needs just one unit vector... and what about U1? As I see it if I could take you through polysign theory within your own theory, and we have nearly done it in a paragraph, you will land more cleanly.
>
> Simply put the real numbers as a basis are fraudulent through their required use of the Cartesian product, which incidentally Descartes never made use of. I will not claim that the Cartesian product is broken, but that it is not fundamental. By what right can we insist upon two real lines, whose origins intersect exactly, and whose angles to one another are always ninety degrees, and claim these things to be independent of one another? We can leave them just there as a working representation, yet attack them as an invalid basis. Yet this is the basis of relativity theory, electromagnetics, etc.. We know that time is a misfit. You yourself are insisting on something rather different in your electron plane. Witness your own unit vectors in sum. Zero? Yes. Witness the unit vectors of the real line in sum. Zero? Yes.. This is how these systems come to be named polysign. We literally are generalizing sign:
> - 1 + 1 = 0 (P2)
> - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 (P3)
> - 1 + 1 * 1 # 1 = 0 (P4)
> ...
> and of course I've left out P1 and its seemingly controversial behavior:
> - 1 = 0 (P1)
> yet these are graphical depictions; renderings; and time itself does render thus. The very term 'dimensional' is tied to the real line, which under polysign is a two-form. It happens to be quite accurate, so like the Cartesian product it can be respected yet not taken as fundamental to all. It almost looks as if I've raised the dimension of these systems by one, yet this is not the case. Every concrete instance can be resolved via the very zeros behaviors above which establish them. Take for instance in P2 a value such as:
> - 3 + 5
> and we see the resolution to + 2. Likewise in P3:
> - 3 + 5 * 1 = - 2 + 4
> and so in the reduced form we still have what could be called a two dimensional entity, yet the very terminology of 'dimension' is old-school here. We have broken into general dimensional mathematics via the generalization of sign, sir.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 7:51:30 AM UTC-6, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:32:40 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > tiistai 14. joulukuuta 2021 klo 14.58.24 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> > > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:41:01 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 21.36.54 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > > Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > > > Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.
> > > > >
> > > > > Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.
> > > > >
> > > > > Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.
> > > > Yes, Theory of surfaces of second degree is not very simple.
> > > > Einstein et al. used simplified basic assumptions which
> > > > must be taken into account when dealing their theories.
> > > >
> > > > See for example
> > > >
> > > > Reference:
> > > >
> > > > Bronshtein-Semendyayev, 1973.
> > > > A Guide Book to Mathematics.
> > > > Springer Verlag.
> > > > Printed in Germany.
> > > > 783 pages. pp. 270-275 and pp. 275-276.
> > > > Surfaces of the second degree (canonical equations)
> > > > pp. 270-275.
> > > > Surfaces of the second degree (general theory).
> > > > pp. 275-276.
> > > >
> > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > I believe you want to research Klein.
> > >
> > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7780
> > >
> > > Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory
> > >
> > > In my own recollection Einstein did meet with Klein and Klein worked independently on a 5D version.
> > > I pull a vacuum on Kaluza though.
> > > That said emag comes into supposedly clean 6D versions.
> > > I don't claim a complete understanding of those positions but am aware of them.
> > > To what degree electricity and magnetism are distinct concepts versus unified I view as an open problem still.
> > > This is not the status quo position, however.
> > >
> > > I am growing in favor of a form of analysis I call interdimensional analysis. It seems no matter where we look dimensional creep exists.
> > > Even in the sum: mathematicians claim that the operator exists on RxR and yields R. What a joke. Are we going to take every integral is infinite dimensional? Are the quants claiming just that in their 'configuration space'?
> > >
> > > There was an old man who walked the floor with a can of oil and meekly touched every shaft of the plant. When he died; and of course the filers were replaced years before; the men in the office were none the wiser.
> > >
> > > No: the gears were crushed long ago and the machine spins on.
> > > We are living in fictitious times, sir.
> > > The skills of the men in the 1800's far surpassed ours.
> > > In the cacophony of specialties that have accrued lays a large pile to digest...
> > No, I don't want to make this new fifth dimension with the electromagnetic
> > vector potential as was in your above reference.
> >
> > I'am now thinking that could it be possible to make an embedding two spaces: A. space-time and B. mirror-space-time into C. five dimensional space..
> >
> > C = A union B or C = A x B , I don't know which of these two set theoretic operations
> > should be usable here?
> >
> > Properties of A and B are:
> > 1. for both spaces time dimension would proceed same way as our familiar
> > time dimension.
> > 2. mirror-space-time would contain invisible DARK MATTER (?), say for example
> > invisible right neutrino matter (right-handed neutrinos?) and these two complex
> > conjugates , H-M-electron (not same as our familiar electron?) and H-M-mirror-electron
> > (not same as our familiar positron?)
> > 3. electron mass is only due expansion resistance of the Universe (H-M)..
> >
> > (in my experimental calculations (my recent posting in sci.physics.relativity,
> > where a kind of Stokes Law used is speculation of mine)
> >
> > I found three solutions for mass of electron and three solutions of
> > radius of electron.
> >
> > One real mass and one real radius (our familiar electron) and
> > two complex conjugate values of mass and two complex conjugate values of radius
> > (H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron).
> >
> > Arguments of all these three solutions for both mass and radius
> > are 0 degrees (real case), 120 degrees and 240 degrees (complex conjugate cases).)
> Well that is very P3 of polysign, which are the complex numbers in a new suit.
> Yeah, Stokes sounds good too.
> One curious fact though is that your mirror electron and its original are indistinguishable.
> So whether the plane deserves to be folded into a half plane deserves to be considered.
> The MU and the anti-MU are somewhat ordinary though. In P4 we see:
> * - = #
> * # = *
> * * = +
> * + = -
> so that the coverage is just as good as the original. To either side of NU lays a MU. The symmetry gets super-sloshed for the primes where powers of every sign can dance through the others... except the NU.
>
> Maybe rather than get lost in the kaleidoscopic effects you need to just focus on one electron on one side for now. Yes, your theory can produce a pair, but without the fundamentals of the one, the pair is a mere distraction.
> >
> > I peg you pardon, but I must distinguish different particles, and this is why
> > I gave names H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron for these new particles.
> >
> > My problem is now how to geometrize these all for calculations
> > C (5 D invisible space?) and
> > A (3+1 D Minkowski space-time) and
> > B (3+1 D invisible mirror-Minkowski space-time) ?
> >
> > Hannu Poropudas
> Hannu, suppose you had a rotor that could beget the unit vectors of your space as:
> U ^ n
> and that further when you need no more vectors this animal simply wraps around to your first vector again.
> Well, pretty quickly you'll find generality in a family of these things so that you'll see a
> U1, U2, U3, U4, ...
> and of course you'd like a breakpoint right around four for spacetime correspondence. There is little doubt that U1 is unidirectional; time. U2 is bidirectional; the familiar bipolar types and of course real line thinking; the basis of Cartesian space, which incidentally Minkowski and Einstein and everybody else as far as I know have relied upon. Yet you see U3 is your complex plane, and it did not come as a buildup of U2. No. It is every bit as fundamental as U2 and U1. Three unit vectors make up the plane of your H-M theory (is that Hannu-Minkowski? if so this is a misnomer. Possibly you'll need to shift that to H-G.) just as two unit vectors made up U2. Ah, you say, U2 needs just one unit vector... and what about U1? As I see it if I could take you through polysign theory within your own theory, and we have nearly done it in a paragraph, you will land more cleanly.
>
> Simply put the real numbers as a basis are fraudulent through their required use of the Cartesian product, which incidentally Descartes never made use of. I will not claim that the Cartesian product is broken, but that it is not fundamental. By what right can we insist upon two real lines, whose origins intersect exactly, and whose angles to one another are always ninety degrees, and claim these things to be independent of one another? We can leave them just there as a working representation, yet attack them as an invalid basis. Yet this is the basis of relativity theory, electromagnetics, etc.. We know that time is a misfit. You yourself are insisting on something rather different in your electron plane. Witness your own unit vectors in sum. Zero? Yes. Witness the unit vectors of the real line in sum. Zero? Yes.. This is how these systems come to be named polysign. We literally are generalizing sign:
> - 1 + 1 = 0 (P2)
> - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 (P3)
> - 1 + 1 * 1 # 1 = 0 (P4)
> ...
> and of course I've left out P1 and its seemingly controversial behavior:
> - 1 = 0 (P1)
> yet these are graphical depictions; renderings; and time itself does render thus. The very term 'dimensional' is tied to the real line, which under polysign is a two-form. It happens to be quite accurate, so like the Cartesian product it can be respected yet not taken as fundamental to all. It almost looks as if I've raised the dimension of these systems by one, yet this is not the case. Every concrete instance can be resolved via the very zeros behaviors above which establish them. Take for instance in P2 a value such as:
> - 3 + 5
> and we see the resolution to + 2. Likewise in P3:
> - 3 + 5 * 1 = - 2 + 4
> and so in the reduced form we still have what could be called a two dimensional entity, yet the very terminology of 'dimension' is old-school here. We have broken into general dimensional mathematics via the generalization of sign, sir.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 4:00:24 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> keskiviikko 15. joulukuuta 2021 klo 15.51.30 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:32:40 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > tiistai 14. joulukuuta 2021 klo 14.58.24 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:41:01 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 21.36.54 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > > > Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > > > > Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.
> > > > > Yes, Theory of surfaces of second degree is not very simple.
> > > > > Einstein et al. used simplified basic assumptions which
> > > > > must be taken into account when dealing their theories.
> > > > >
> > > > > See for example
> > > > >
> > > > > Reference:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bronshtein-Semendyayev, 1973.
> > > > > A Guide Book to Mathematics.
> > > > > Springer Verlag.
> > > > > Printed in Germany.
> > > > > 783 pages. pp. 270-275 and pp. 275-276.
> > > > > Surfaces of the second degree (canonical equations)
> > > > > pp. 270-275.
> > > > > Surfaces of the second degree (general theory).
> > > > > pp. 275-276.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > > I believe you want to research Klein.
> > > >
> > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7780
> > > >
> > > > Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory
> > > >
> > > > In my own recollection Einstein did meet with Klein and Klein worked independently on a 5D version.
> > > > I pull a vacuum on Kaluza though.
> > > > That said emag comes into supposedly clean 6D versions.
> > > > I don't claim a complete understanding of those positions but am aware of them.
> > > > To what degree electricity and magnetism are distinct concepts versus unified I view as an open problem still.
> > > > This is not the status quo position, however.
> > > >
> > > > I am growing in favor of a form of analysis I call interdimensional analysis. It seems no matter where we look dimensional creep exists.
> > > > Even in the sum: mathematicians claim that the operator exists on RxR and yields R. What a joke. Are we going to take every integral is infinite dimensional? Are the quants claiming just that in their 'configuration space'?
> > > >
> > > > There was an old man who walked the floor with a can of oil and meekly touched every shaft of the plant. When he died; and of course the filers were replaced years before; the men in the office were none the wiser.
> > > >
> > > > No: the gears were crushed long ago and the machine spins on.
> > > > We are living in fictitious times, sir.
> > > > The skills of the men in the 1800's far surpassed ours.
> > > > In the cacophony of specialties that have accrued lays a large pile to digest...
> > > No, I don't want to make this new fifth dimension with the electromagnetic
> > > vector potential as was in your above reference.
> > >
> > > I'am now thinking that could it be possible to make an embedding two spaces: A. space-time and B. mirror-space-time into C. five dimensional space.
> > >
> > > C = A union B or C = A x B , I don't know which of these two set theoretic operations
> > > should be usable here?
> > >
> > > Properties of A and B are:
> > > 1. for both spaces time dimension would proceed same way as our familiar
> > > time dimension.
> > > 2. mirror-space-time would contain invisible DARK MATTER (?), say for example
> > > invisible right neutrino matter (right-handed neutrinos?) and these two complex
> > > conjugates , H-M-electron (not same as our familiar electron?) and H-M-mirror-electron
> > > (not same as our familiar positron?)
> > > 3. electron mass is only due expansion resistance of the Universe (H-M).
> > >
> > > (in my experimental calculations (my recent posting in sci.physics.relativity,
> > > where a kind of Stokes Law used is speculation of mine)
> > >
> > > I found three solutions for mass of electron and three solutions of
> > > radius of electron.
> > >
> > > One real mass and one real radius (our familiar electron) and
> > > two complex conjugate values of mass and two complex conjugate values of radius
> > > (H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron).
> > >
> > > Arguments of all these three solutions for both mass and radius
> > > are 0 degrees (real case), 120 degrees and 240 degrees (complex conjugate cases).)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Well that is very P3 of polysign, which are the complex numbers in a new suit.
> > Yeah, Stokes sounds good too.
> > One curious fact though is that your mirror electron and its original are indistinguishable.
> > So whether the plane deserves to be folded into a half plane deserves to be considered.
> > The MU and the anti-MU are somewhat ordinary though. In P4 we see:
> > * - = #
> > * # = *
> > * * = +
> > * + = -
> > so that the coverage is just as good as the original. To either side of NU lays a MU. The symmetry gets super-sloshed for the primes where powers of every sign can dance through the others... except the NU.
> >
> > Maybe rather than get lost in the kaleidoscopic effects you need to just focus on one electron on one side for now. Yes, your theory can produce a pair, but without the fundamentals of the one, the pair is a mere distraction.
> You seems to me have some kind of new mathematical theory , if you have clear mathematically acceptable definitions
> of everything (new concepts, letters etc. ) you used.
> OR
> You have a pseudo-mathematical theory, if you don't have clear mathematically acceptable definitions of everything
> (new concepts, letters etc. ) you used ?
>
> Hannu
> > >
> > > I peg you pardon, but I must distinguish different particles, and this is why
> > > I gave names H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron for these new particles.
> > >
> > > My problem is now how to geometrize these all for calculations
> > > C (5 D invisible space?) and
> > > A (3+1 D Minkowski space-time) and
> > > B (3+1 D invisible mirror-Minkowski space-time) ?
> > >
> > > Hannu Poropudas
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hannu, suppose you had a rotor that could beget the unit vectors of your space as:
> > U ^ n
> > and that further when you need no more vectors this animal simply wraps around to your first vector again.
> > Well, pretty quickly you'll find generality in a family of these things so that you'll see a
> > U1, U2, U3, U4, ...
> > and of course you'd like a breakpoint right around four for spacetime correspondence. There is little doubt that U1 is unidirectional; time. U2 is bidirectional; the familiar bipolar types and of course real line thinking; the basis of Cartesian space, which incidentally Minkowski and Einstein and everybody else as far as I know have relied upon. Yet you see U3 is your complex plane, and it did not come as a buildup of U2. No. It is every bit as fundamental as U2 and U1. Three unit vectors make up the plane of your H-M theory (is that Hannu-Minkowski? if so this is a misnomer. Possibly you'll need to shift that to H-G.) just as two unit vectors made up U2. Ah, you say, U2 needs just one unit vector... and what about U1? As I see it if I could take you through polysign theory within your own theory, and we have nearly done it in a paragraph, you will land more cleanly.
> >
> > Simply put the real numbers as a basis are fraudulent through their required use of the Cartesian product, which incidentally Descartes never made use of. I will not claim that the Cartesian product is broken, but that it is not fundamental. By what right can we insist upon two real lines, whose origins intersect exactly, and whose angles to one another are always ninety degrees, and claim these things to be independent of one another? We can leave them just there as a working representation, yet attack them as an invalid basis. Yet this is the basis of relativity theory, electromagnetics, etc.. We know that time is a misfit. You yourself are insisting on something rather different in your electron plane. Witness your own unit vectors in sum. Zero? Yes. Witness the unit vectors of the real line in sum. Zero? Yes. This is how these systems come to be named polysign. We literally are generalizing sign:
> > - 1 + 1 = 0 (P2)
> > - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 (P3)
> > - 1 + 1 * 1 # 1 = 0 (P4)
> > ...
> > and of course I've left out P1 and its seemingly controversial behavior:
> > - 1 = 0 (P1)
> > yet these are graphical depictions; renderings; and time itself does render thus. The very term 'dimensional' is tied to the real line, which under polysign is a two-form. It happens to be quite accurate, so like the Cartesian product it can be respected yet not taken as fundamental to all. It almost looks as if I've raised the dimension of these systems by one, yet this is not the case. Every concrete instance can be resolved via the very zeros behaviors above which establish them. Take for instance in P2 a value such as:
> > - 3 + 5
> > and we see the resolution to + 2. Likewise in P3:
> > - 3 + 5 * 1 = - 2 + 4
> > and so in the reduced form we still have what could be called a two dimensional entity, yet the very terminology of 'dimension' is old-school here.. We have broken into general dimensional mathematics via the generalization of sign, sir.
> You seems to me have some kind of new mathematical theory , if you have clear mathematically acceptable definitions
> of everything (new concepts, letters etc. ) you used.
> OR
> You have a pseudo-mathematical theory, if you don't have clear mathematically acceptable definitions of everything
> (new concepts, letters etc. ) you used ?
>
> Hannu

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 6:07:23 PM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 4:00:24 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > keskiviikko 15. joulukuuta 2021 klo 15.51.30 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> > > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:32:40 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > tiistai 14. joulukuuta 2021 klo 14.58.24 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> > > > > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:41:01 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > > maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 21.36.54 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > > > > Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > > > > > Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.
> > > > > > Yes, Theory of surfaces of second degree is not very simple.
> > > > > > Einstein et al. used simplified basic assumptions which
> > > > > > must be taken into account when dealing their theories.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See for example
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reference:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bronshtein-Semendyayev, 1973.
> > > > > > A Guide Book to Mathematics.
> > > > > > Springer Verlag.
> > > > > > Printed in Germany.
> > > > > > 783 pages. pp. 270-275 and pp. 275-276.
> > > > > > Surfaces of the second degree (canonical equations)
> > > > > > pp. 270-275.
> > > > > > Surfaces of the second degree (general theory).
> > > > > > pp. 275-276.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > > > I believe you want to research Klein.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7780
> > > > >
> > > > > Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory
> > > > >
> > > > > In my own recollection Einstein did meet with Klein and Klein worked independently on a 5D version.
> > > > > I pull a vacuum on Kaluza though.
> > > > > That said emag comes into supposedly clean 6D versions.
> > > > > I don't claim a complete understanding of those positions but am aware of them.
> > > > > To what degree electricity and magnetism are distinct concepts versus unified I view as an open problem still.
> > > > > This is not the status quo position, however.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am growing in favor of a form of analysis I call interdimensional analysis. It seems no matter where we look dimensional creep exists.
> > > > > Even in the sum: mathematicians claim that the operator exists on RxR and yields R. What a joke. Are we going to take every integral is infinite dimensional? Are the quants claiming just that in their 'configuration space'?
> > > > >
> > > > > There was an old man who walked the floor with a can of oil and meekly touched every shaft of the plant. When he died; and of course the filers were replaced years before; the men in the office were none the wiser.
> > > > >
> > > > > No: the gears were crushed long ago and the machine spins on.
> > > > > We are living in fictitious times, sir.
> > > > > The skills of the men in the 1800's far surpassed ours.
> > > > > In the cacophony of specialties that have accrued lays a large pile to digest...
> > > > No, I don't want to make this new fifth dimension with the electromagnetic
> > > > vector potential as was in your above reference.
> > > >
> > > > I'am now thinking that could it be possible to make an embedding two spaces: A. space-time and B. mirror-space-time into C. five dimensional space.

Back prior to polysign I do think I tried a few Y spaces which are akin to what your mirror is I suspect. Twinning as a fundamental really.
But twinning is a commitment to two: to the binary form. Unification lays arguably in a one-form as much as in an n-form, and so the entire progression gets let in.

Of interest to you could be the tatrix form which fits kindly into the above interpretation.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 ...
a11 a21 a22 a31 a32 a33 a41 a42 a43 a44 a51 a52 a53 a54 a55 ...
and of course to get a bit more boxy:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44 a
51 a52 a53 a54 a55
....

and so a triangular matrix (tatrix) informationally consistent with the antisymmetric tensor alights.

> > > >
> > > > C = A union B or C = A x B , I don't know which of these two set theoretic operations
> > > > should be usable here?
> > > >
> > > > Properties of A and B are:
> > > > 1. for both spaces time dimension would proceed same way as our familiar
> > > > time dimension.
> > > > 2. mirror-space-time would contain invisible DARK MATTER (?), say for example
> > > > invisible right neutrino matter (right-handed neutrinos?) and these two complex
> > > > conjugates , H-M-electron (not same as our familiar electron?) and H-M-mirror-electron
> > > > (not same as our familiar positron?)
> > > > 3. electron mass is only due expansion resistance of the Universe (H-M).
> > > >
> > > > (in my experimental calculations (my recent posting in sci.physics.relativity,
> > > > where a kind of Stokes Law used is speculation of mine)
> > > >
> > > > I found three solutions for mass of electron and three solutions of
> > > > radius of electron.
> > > >
> > > > One real mass and one real radius (our familiar electron) and
> > > > two complex conjugate values of mass and two complex conjugate values of radius
> > > > (H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron).
> > > >
> > > > Arguments of all these three solutions for both mass and radius
> > > > are 0 degrees (real case), 120 degrees and 240 degrees (complex conjugate cases).)
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Well that is very P3 of polysign, which are the complex numbers in a new suit.
> > > Yeah, Stokes sounds good too.
> > > One curious fact though is that your mirror electron and its original are indistinguishable.
> > > So whether the plane deserves to be folded into a half plane deserves to be considered.
> > > The MU and the anti-MU are somewhat ordinary though. In P4 we see:
> > > * - = #
> > > * # = *
> > > * * = +
> > > * + = -
> > > so that the coverage is just as good as the original. To either side of NU lays a MU. The symmetry gets super-sloshed for the primes where powers of every sign can dance through the others... except the NU.
> > >
> > > Maybe rather than get lost in the kaleidoscopic effects you need to just focus on one electron on one side for now. Yes, your theory can produce a pair, but without the fundamentals of the one, the pair is a mere distraction.
> > You seems to me have some kind of new mathematical theory , if you have clear mathematically acceptable definitions
> > of everything (new concepts, letters etc. ) you used.
> > OR
> > You have a pseudo-mathematical theory, if you don't have clear mathematically acceptable definitions of everything
> > (new concepts, letters etc. ) you used ?
> >
> > Hannu
> > > >
> > > > I peg you pardon, but I must distinguish different particles, and this is why
> > > > I gave names H-M-electron and H-M-mirror-electron for these new particles.
> > > >
> > > > My problem is now how to geometrize these all for calculations
> > > > C (5 D invisible space?) and
> > > > A (3+1 D Minkowski space-time) and
> > > > B (3+1 D invisible mirror-Minkowski space-time) ?
> > > >
> > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Hannu, suppose you had a rotor that could beget the unit vectors of your space as:
> > > U ^ n
> > > and that further when you need no more vectors this animal simply wraps around to your first vector again.
> > > Well, pretty quickly you'll find generality in a family of these things so that you'll see a
> > > U1, U2, U3, U4, ...
> > > and of course you'd like a breakpoint right around four for spacetime correspondence. There is little doubt that U1 is unidirectional; time. U2 is bidirectional; the familiar bipolar types and of course real line thinking; the basis of Cartesian space, which incidentally Minkowski and Einstein and everybody else as far as I know have relied upon. Yet you see U3 is your complex plane, and it did not come as a buildup of U2. No. It is every bit as fundamental as U2 and U1. Three unit vectors make up the plane of your H-M theory (is that Hannu-Minkowski? if so this is a misnomer. Possibly you'll need to shift that to H-G.) just as two unit vectors made up U2. Ah, you say, U2 needs just one unit vector... and what about U1? As I see it if I could take you through polysign theory within your own theory, and we have nearly done it in a paragraph, you will land more cleanly.
> > >
> > > Simply put the real numbers as a basis are fraudulent through their required use of the Cartesian product, which incidentally Descartes never made use of. I will not claim that the Cartesian product is broken, but that it is not fundamental. By what right can we insist upon two real lines, whose origins intersect exactly, and whose angles to one another are always ninety degrees, and claim these things to be independent of one another? We can leave them just there as a working representation, yet attack them as an invalid basis. Yet this is the basis of relativity theory, electromagnetics, etc.. We know that time is a misfit. You yourself are insisting on something rather different in your electron plane. Witness your own unit vectors in sum. Zero? Yes. Witness the unit vectors of the real line in sum. Zero? Yes. This is how these systems come to be named polysign. We literally are generalizing sign:
> > > - 1 + 1 = 0 (P2)
> > > - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 (P3)
> > > - 1 + 1 * 1 # 1 = 0 (P4)
> > > ...
> > > and of course I've left out P1 and its seemingly controversial behavior:
> > > - 1 = 0 (P1)
> > > yet these are graphical depictions; renderings; and time itself does render thus. The very term 'dimensional' is tied to the real line, which under polysign is a two-form. It happens to be quite accurate, so like the Cartesian product it can be respected yet not taken as fundamental to all. It almost looks as if I've raised the dimension of these systems by one, yet this is not the case. Every concrete instance can be resolved via the very zeros behaviors above which establish them. Take for instance in P2 a value such as:
> > > - 3 + 5
> > > and we see the resolution to + 2. Likewise in P3:
> > > - 3 + 5 * 1 = - 2 + 4
> > > and so in the reduced form we still have what could be called a two dimensional entity, yet the very terminology of 'dimension' is old-school here. We have broken into general dimensional mathematics via the generalization of sign, sir.
> > You seems to me have some kind of new mathematical theory , if you have clear mathematically acceptable definitions
> > of everything (new concepts, letters etc. ) you used.
> > OR
> > You have a pseudo-mathematical theory, if you don't have clear mathematically acceptable definitions of everything
> > (new concepts, letters etc. ) you used ?
> >
> > Hannu
> Polysign are strict and clean.
> http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned

On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 10:39:27 AM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 6:07:23 PM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 4:00:24 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > keskiviikko 15. joulukuuta 2021 klo 15.51.30 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:32:40 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > tiistai 14. joulukuuta 2021 klo 14.58.24 UTC+2 timba...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:41:01 AM UTC-5, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > > > maanantai 13. joulukuuta 2021 klo 21.36.54 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium kirjoitti:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-6, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Please comment mathematics only of the subject (how to add additional 5-dimension for (3+1) dimensional flat space time?) of these posting of mine and nothing else.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > > > > > > Well you failed to start at a proper beginning.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Einstein and Minkowski Space-time are both washed up and washed out as failed math.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Neither had a well educated background or understanding of Electricity & Magnetism.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Neither could see that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So with that being the case, neither Einstein or Minkowski had a level stable view of dimension of symmetry of geometry.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And Hannu Poropudas when looking at a single cone and a slant cut in single cone, Hannu sees a Ellipse only because Hannu memorized from school that it is a ellipse and does not know that he is utterly wrong, the ellipse comes from a two axis symmetry-- the cylinder. The cone has just one axis of symmetry -- a cut through the apex and base diameter. If you cut the cone at midpoint of height, your two objects are not symmetrical objects. If you cut the cylinder at midpoint of height, your two objects are symmetrical.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Einstein was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Minkowski was too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hannu Poropudas is too stupid to see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In fact, all three of these persons are so raw stupid, that they acknowledge a cone and cylinder are far far different geometry objects, yet in their raw stupidity, they imagine, like some nitwit, they imagine that a slant cut will deliver both a ellipse in the cone as well as a ellipse in the cylinder. I mean, really stupid ignorant people in mathematics, who start out with two different objects and in their stupidity, end up with a ellipse in both of them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, Hannu, let us talk math, not your insane mathematics.
> > > > > > > Yes, Theory of surfaces of second degree is not very simple.
> > > > > > > Einstein et al. used simplified basic assumptions which
> > > > > > > must be taken into account when dealing their theories.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See for example
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reference:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bronshtein-Semendyayev, 1973.
> > > > > > > A Guide Book to Mathematics.
> > > > > > > Springer Verlag.
> > > > > > > Printed in Germany.
> > > > > > > 783 pages. pp. 270-275 and pp. 275-276.
> > > > > > > Surfaces of the second degree (canonical equations)
> > > > > > > pp. 270-275.
> > > > > > > Surfaces of the second degree (general theory).
> > > > > > > pp. 275-276.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hannu Poropudas
> > > > > > I believe you want to research Klein.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7780
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my own recollection Einstein did meet with Klein and Klein worked independently on a 5D version.
> > > > > > I pull a vacuum on Kaluza though.
> > > > > > That said emag comes into supposedly clean 6D versions.
> > > > > > I don't claim a complete understanding of those positions but am aware of them.
> > > > > > To what degree electricity and magnetism are distinct concepts versus unified I view as an open problem still.
> > > > > > This is not the status quo position, however.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am growing in favor of a form of analysis I call interdimensional analysis. It seems no matter where we look dimensional creep exists.
> > > > > > Even in the sum: mathematicians claim that the operator exists on RxR and yields R. What a joke. Are we going to take every integral is infinite dimensional? Are the quants claiming just that in their 'configuration space'?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was an old man who walked the floor with a can of oil and meekly touched every shaft of the plant. When he died; and of course the filers were replaced years before; the men in the office were none the wiser..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No: the gears were crushed long ago and the machine spins on.
> > > > > > We are living in fictitious times, sir.
> > > > > > The skills of the men in the 1800's far surpassed ours.
> > > > > > In the cacophony of specialties that have accrued lays a large pile to digest...
> > > > > No, I don't want to make this new fifth dimension with the electromagnetic
> > > > > vector potential as was in your above reference.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'am now thinking that could it be possible to make an embedding two spaces: A. space-time and B. mirror-space-time into C. five dimensional space.
> Back prior to polysign I do think I tried a few Y spaces which are akin to what your mirror is I suspect. Twinning as a fundamental really.
> But twinning is a commitment to two: to the binary form. Unification lays arguably in a one-form as much as in an n-form, and so the entire progression gets let in.
>
> Of interest to you could be the tatrix form which fits kindly into the above interpretation.
> P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 ...
> a11 a21 a22 a31 a32 a33 a41 a42 a43 a44 a51 a52 a53 a54 a55 ...
> and of course to get a bit more boxy:
> a11
> a21 a22
> a31 a32 a33
> a41 a42 a43 a44 a
> 51 a52 a53 a54 a55
> ...
>
> and so a triangular matrix (tatrix) informationally consistent with the antisymmetric tensor alights.

So, you say, if you are so onto the thing then where is the physics?
To which I say, Good Question, Sir. And is a basis to be purely arithmetic?