Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TheoryOfEverything] Hyperspherical, Hypertoroidal, hypercylindrical...:)

Expand Messages
  • rybo6
    ... Alan wrote: 0 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point.html x^2 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LineSegment.html x^2 + y^2 = r^2
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 4, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:05 AM, MP wrote:
      > What is the name of the 5-D figure below…J
      Alan wrote:
      0 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point.html
      x^2 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LineSegment.html
      x^2 + y^2 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html
      x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere.html
      x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Glome.html
      x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2 + t^2 = r^2
      http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypersphere.html
    • christof139
      Oh-oh. Integrals. Being the great Geometrist of the 21st Century that you are Mother Rybo, I would guess that you proscribe to the definition of a Glome ,
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 4, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh-oh. Integrals.

        Being the great Geometrist of the 21st Century that you are Mother
        Rybo, I would guess that you proscribe to the definition of a 'Glome',
        Gnome that ye may possibly be. Perhaps a 'topologist' may use the the
        term 'Gloat', I dunno.

        What makes these things 'Hyper' anyway??

        Seems ordinary to me.

        Yes, a line is composed of an infintisimal amount of points, but the n-
        dimensional aspect is mathematically proveable as Cantor proved, but
        debatable to some degree.

        Glad I don't have a good scientific calculator anymore, and ciphering
        square roots etc. without one is not for me. How about you??

        Ha ha ha!!!

        Chris

        --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, rybo6 <rybo6@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:05 AM, MP wrote:
        > > What is the name of the 5-D figure below…J
        > Alan wrote:
        > 0 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point.html
        > x^2 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LineSegment.html
        > x^2 + y^2 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html
        > x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere.html
        > x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2 = r^2 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Glome.html
        > x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2 + t^2 = r^2
        > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypersphere.html
        >
      • MP
        Hi Rybo, I know that you like polyhedrons... but is a bubble better described by a polyhedron or by a sphere... are the waves on a pond (created by rain
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 5, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          Hi Rybo,

           

          I know that you like polyhedrons...  but is a bubble better described by a polyhedron or by a sphere...  are the waves on a pond (created by rain drops) ...

           

          Before embarking in understanding possible interpretations that I might have missed in my model... it is always a good idea to start from a good understanding from that the model says..

           

           

          Above you see a sphere… and the Letter X… If this sphere were our World, I would be meaning that you can go around and come back to the same place…

           

          The sphere is meant to mean the whole Universe…J 3-D as you know it…

           

          If there were no more info, you could conclude that I am saying that you can travel around the Universe and come back into the same place…. That is not true…  The Expanding part of the Expanding Hyperspherical Shock Wave Universe, describes a state of motion of the Universe…

           

          Now imagine that that circle is increasing radius at the speed of light (and has done that for 15 billion years)…  now that circle would be quite big… the receding distance between points in the circle could reach pi*c…

           

          Anything beyond one radian could never been seen…  Anything at one radian would be Doppler shifted to microwaves… Cosmic Microwave Background …

           

          Rybo… you might think about the Universe as a group of surfers surfing the mother of all waves…

           

          I am afraid that that most appropriate name would be hyperconical hypercircle…

           

          Cheers,

           

          MP

           

           

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com [mailto: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of rybo6
          Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:59 PM
          To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [TheoryOfEverything] Hyperspherical, Hypertoroidal, hypercylindrical...:)

           

           

          On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:05 AM, MP wrote:

          > http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2006/08/hyperspherical-

          > universe.html

          >  

          > Ps- by the way, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask 

          > them…

           

          MP, x^2 + y^2 + z^2 If understand correctly defines 3 perpendicular 

          edges/lines that would be one part( one third ) of the 12 edges of a 

          cube.

           

          E.g. the above could be stated as  1 + 1 + 1 = 3 if x, y and z  each 

          have value of 1.

           

          My only misperception in the above may be if z is either a  surface 

          or volumetric diagonal?

           

          But what is

          w" in the formula w^2?  Width?

           

          If so then I don't follow.

           

          Also Im not sure how easily we t( time ) can accurate be reflected in 

          that formula but that may be my lack of mathematics and  physics i.e. 

          they do it all the time so there is no problem because size( ergo 

          space distance can only occur over a period of time.

           

          Anyway you if we say the value for all of the above is 1 then the r

          ( ergo the radius? ) equals 4, when also adding in the "w" value of 1.

           

          Radius of the thing( whatever it correct named ) is 4.

           

          Im not sure why projected by you as curved circle or 5-D spherical 

          when in fact may  be more accurately dessribed as a polyhedron i.e. 

          sides or edges and not curves?

           

          Rybo

           

           

           

           

           

          Yahoo! Groups Links

           

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/

           

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

              TheoryOfEverything-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

           

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

           

           

           

           

        • rybo6
          ... MP, I don t know. I do know( think I know ) that there is no such thing as *true* sphere in physical reality but only varing frequencies of polyhedra s
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 5, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:42 PM, MP wrote:
            > I know that you like polyhedrons... but is a bubble better
            > described by a polyhedron or by a sphere... are the waves on a
            > pond (created by rain drops) ...

            MP, I don't know. I do know( think I know ) that there is no such
            thing as *true* sphere in physical reality but only varing
            frequencies of polyhedra's with the higher frequencies approaching
            ( sphericity ) being a *true* sphere but never attaining such
            metaphyscially conceptual perfection.

            > Before embarking in understanding possible interpretations that I
            > might have missed in my model... it is always a good idea to start
            > from a good understanding from that the model says..

            That is why I asked the questions regaring specifics statments in
            your email message and blog.

            > Above you see a sphere… and the Letter X… If this sphere were our
            > World, I would be meaning that you can go around and come back to
            > the same place…

            I see a circle. If it represents a *sphere* then that is the answer
            to your quesiton "what is name of this object".


            > The sphere is meant to mean the whole Universe…J 3-D as you know it…

            Ok, I can go with that concept for now.

            > If there were no more info, you could conclude that I am saying
            > that you can travel around the Universe and come back into the same
            > place…. That is not true… The Expanding part of the Expanding
            > Hyperspherical Shock Wave Universe, describes a state of motion of
            > the Universe…

            Seems like I've heard similar scenarios like this before but I've yet
            to grasp them.

            >
            >
            > Now imagine that that circle is increasing radius at the speed of
            > light (and has done that for 15 billion years)… now that circle
            > would be quite big… the receding distance between points in the
            > circle could reach pi*c…

            Ok

            >
            >
            > Anything beyond one radian could never been seen… Anything at one
            > radian would be Doppler shifted to microwaves… Cosmic Microwave
            > Background …


            What is a context of radian or what is radian in this context. I
            don't understand.

            >
            >
            > Rybo… you might think about the Universe as a group of surfers
            > surfing the mother of all waves…

            Ok, but I'm not sure where you going with this scenario.

            >
            >
            > I am afraid that that most appropriate name would be hyperconical
            > hypercircle…

            Ok, it appears you have answered your own question.

            MP, you can attempt to answer or address any of the questions I
            originally asked you( below ) that would be great also. Thanks
            Rybo

            On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:05 AM, MP wrote: > Ps- by the way, if you have
            any questions, please feel free to ask

            > them…

            MP, x^2 + y^2 + z^2, If understand correctly defines 3 perpendicular
            edges/lines that would be one part( one third ) of the 12 edges of a

            cube.


            E.g. the above could be stated as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 if x, y and z each

            have value of 1.


            My only misperception in the above may be if z is either a surface

            or volumetric diagonal?


            But what is

            w" in the formula w^2? Width?


            If so then I don't follow.


            Also Im not sure how easily we t( time ) can accurate be reflected in

            that formula but that may be my lack of mathematics and physics i.e.

            they do it all the time so there is no problem because size( ergo

            space distance can only occur over a period of time.


            Anyway you if we say the value for all of the above is 1 then the r

            ( ergo the radius? ) equals 4, when also adding in the "w" value of 1.


            Radius of the thing( whatever it correct named ) is 4.


            Im not sure why projected by you as curved circle or 5-D spherical

            when in fact may be more accurately dessribed as a polyhedron i.e.

            sides or edges and not curves?


            Rybo
          • christof139
            Hollow or solid, many examples of spheres exist in the world of reality Rybo, our physcial world, within a few degrees or minutes and seconds etc. of degrees
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 5, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Hollow or solid, many examples of spheres exist in the world of
              reality Rybo, our physcial world, within a few degrees or minutes and
              seconds etc. of degrees many of the stars and planets are true
              spheres, as are baseballs, foot(soccer)balls, basketballs, ball
              lightning etc. spheres, eyeballs more or less, the family jewels but
              they being more ovoid shaped spheres, peas, oranges, grapes,
              cherries, musket balls, cannon balls either spherical case or shell
              or solid shot, cannister balls and grapeshot, ball bearings, geologic
              concretions, water-rounded grains of sand, some light bulbs but not
              yours, and last but not least, MARBLES, of which you seem to be
              lacking many!!!

              BTW, you didn't define what you meant by a 'true' sphere anyway. I
              didn't know there were 'fals' spheres or spheroid shaped objects.

              G'nite guv'nor, Cristobal


              --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, rybo6 <rybo6@...> wrote:
              >
              > On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:42 PM, MP wrote:
              > > I know that you like polyhedrons... but is a bubble better
              > > described by a polyhedron or by a sphere... are the waves on a
              > > pond (created by rain drops) ...
              >
              > MP, I don't know. I do know( think I know ) that there is no such
              > thing as *true* sphere in physical reality but only varing
              > frequencies of polyhedra's with the higher frequencies approaching
              > ( sphericity ) being a *true* sphere but never attaining such
              > metaphyscially conceptual perfection.
              >
              > > Before embarking in understanding possible interpretations that
              I
              > > might have missed in my model... it is always a good idea to
              start
              > > from a good understanding from that the model says..
              >
              > That is why I asked the questions regaring specifics statments in
              > your email message and blog.
              >
              > > Above you see a sphere… and the Letter X… If this sphere were
              our
              > > World, I would be meaning that you can go around and come back
              to
              > > the same place…
              >
              > I see a circle. If it represents a *sphere* then that is the
              answer
              > to your quesiton "what is name of this object".
              >
              >
              > > The sphere is meant to mean the whole Universe…J 3-D as you know
              it…
              >
              > Ok, I can go with that concept for now.
              >
              > > If there were no more info, you could conclude that I am saying
              > > that you can travel around the Universe and come back into the
              same
              > > place…. That is not true… The Expanding part of the Expanding
              > > Hyperspherical Shock Wave Universe, describes a state of motion
              of
              > > the Universe…
              >
              > Seems like I've heard similar scenarios like this before but I've
              yet
              > to grasp them.
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > Now imagine that that circle is increasing radius at the speed
              of
              > > light (and has done that for 15 billion years)… now that circle
              > > would be quite big… the receding distance between points in the
              > > circle could reach pi*c…
              >
              > Ok
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > Anything beyond one radian could never been seen… Anything at
              one
              > > radian would be Doppler shifted to microwaves… Cosmic Microwave
              > > Background …
              >
              >
              > What is a context of radian or what is radian in this context. I
              > don't understand.
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > Rybo… you might think about the Universe as a group of surfers
              > > surfing the mother of all waves…
              >
              > Ok, but I'm not sure where you going with this scenario.
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > I am afraid that that most appropriate name would be
              hyperconical
              > > hypercircle…
              >
              > Ok, it appears you have answered your own question.
              >
              > MP, you can attempt to answer or address any of the questions I
              > originally asked you( below ) that would be great also. Thanks
              > Rybo
              >
              > On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:05 AM, MP wrote: > Ps- by the way, if you
              have
              > any questions, please feel free to ask
              >
              > > them…
              >
              > MP, x^2 + y^2 + z^2, If understand correctly defines 3
              perpendicular
              > edges/lines that would be one part( one third ) of the 12 edges of a
              >
              > cube.
              >
              >
              > E.g. the above could be stated as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 if x, y and z each
              >
              > have value of 1.
              >
              >
              > My only misperception in the above may be if z is either a surface
              >
              > or volumetric diagonal?
              >
              >
              > But what is
              >
              > w" in the formula w^2? Width?
              >
              >
              > If so then I don't follow.
              >
              >
              > Also Im not sure how easily we t( time ) can accurate be reflected
              in
              >
              > that formula but that may be my lack of mathematics and physics
              i.e.
              >
              > they do it all the time so there is no problem because size( ergo
              >
              > space distance can only occur over a period of time.
              >
              >
              > Anyway you if we say the value for all of the above is 1 then the r
              >
              > ( ergo the radius? ) equals 4, when also adding in the "w" value of
              1.
              >
              >
              > Radius of the thing( whatever it correct named ) is 4.
              >
              >
              > Im not sure why projected by you as curved circle or 5-D spherical
              >
              > when in fact may be more accurately dessribed as a polyhedron i.e.
              >
              > sides or edges and not curves?
              >
              >
              > Rybo
              >
            • MP
              Rybo, I have to question your premises...:) Pick up a deflated balloon... inflate it ... see if you can see any straight lines... I don t believe and don t
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment

                Rybo,

                 

                I have to question your premises...:)

                 

                Pick up a deflated balloon... inflate it ... see if you can see any straight lines...

                 

                I don't believe and don't know from where did you derived this idea...

                   MP, I don't know.  I do know( think I know ) that there is no such 

                thing as *true* sphere in physical reality but only varing 

                frequencies of polyhedra's with the higher frequencies approaching

                ( sphericity ) being a *true*  sphere but never attaining such 

                metaphyscially conceptual perfection.

                 

                On the other hand, it is not really important at all if the Hypersphere is perfectly hyperspherical…There might be some imprinted shock wave dynamics on the local radius of curvature… It is not important to be a perfect circle… although Moment conservation will be obeyed at all times…  Metaphysical Conceptual Perfection is not important…

                 

                I see a circle. If it represents a *sphere* then that is the answer 

                to your question "what is name of this object".

                 

                It is a circle along each on of the three cross sections XR, YR and ZR

                 

                XY,XZ and YZ cross-sections are undefined since there are no fingerprints of the shock-wave along those directions…they do not cross the wave …

                 

                Fi (cosmological time) versus R cross section is just a straight line R=c*Fi

                 

                So it is more complex than just a circle… that is why I suspect I would call it a hypercircle…

                 

                 

                > Anything beyond one radian could never been seen…  Anything at one 

                > radian would be Doppler shifted to microwaves… Cosmic Microwave  

                > Background …

                 

                 

                What is a context of radian or what is radian in this context.  I 

                don't understand.

                 

                The proposed Universe is 5-D which means 3D(X,Y,Z) x R.Theta   where R is the dimensional age of the Universe (c*age of the Universe) and Theta is the Cosmological Angle)…  Of course, you can always locate anything in the X,Y,Z space if you have ThetaX, ThetaY, ThetaZ…  Those coordinates define an absolute position on the 5D Universe; it doesn’t define the state of motion… The state of motion is defined by two angles… one real and another imaginary…

                 

                The real angle is associated with an absolute rotation around the axis perpendicular to RX.. and the other rotation is the Lorentz Transformation…an imaginary angle rotation around the axis perpendicular to XFi (FI is the Cosmological time perpendicular to the green circle in the figure)…

                 

                In other words…something away by one radian would be circa 15 billion light years away…

                 

                My only misperception in the above may be if z is either a  surface

                 

                or volumetric diagonal?

                 

                 

                But what is

                 

                w" in the formula w^2?  Width?

                 

                W in that general formula for a 5-D Hypersphere is any 5-D Cartesian coordinate w…

                 

                The object is clearly not a Hypersphere… and I didn’t want people to conclude that the theory was bad just because I used imperfect nomenclature…  From what I know, the topology was never thought, conjectured before and the object has no name…

                 

                In any event, I created a pretty convincing argument in its favor, by adding to the its clarity in explaining Universe expansion without the need of Dark Matter, Dark Force…etc.. the lack of constantness of the Hubble Constant, the Cosmic Microwave Background, the reason of inertial motion ( Newton ’s First Law)… and a Grand Unification Theory…

                 

                If I miss something, please feel free to ask me directly…

                 

                I am barely better from a nasty flu…

                 

                Cheers, Rybo

                 

                MP

                 

                -----Original Message-----
                From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com [mailto: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of rybo6
                Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 12:46 AM
                To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [TheoryOfEverything] Hyperspherical, Hypertoroidal, hypercylindrical...:)

                 

                On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:42 PM, MP wrote:

                > I know that you like polyhedrons...  but is a bubble better 

                > described by a polyhedron or by a sphere...  are the waves on a 

                > pond (created by rain drops) ...

                 

                MP, I don't know.  I do know( think I know ) that there is no such 

                thing as *true* sphere in physical reality but only varing 

                frequencies of polyhedra's with the higher frequencies approaching

                ( sphericity ) being a *true*  sphere but never attaining such 

                metaphyscially conceptual perfection.

                 

                >  Before embarking in understanding possible interpretations that I 

                > might have missed in my model... it is always a good idea to start 

                > from a good understanding from that the model says..

                 

                That is why I asked the questions regaring specifics statments in 

                your email message and blog.

                 

                >  Above you see a sphere… and the Letter X… If this sphere were our 

                > World, I would be meaning that you can go around and come back to 

                > the same place…

                 

                I see a circle. If it represents a *sphere* then that is the answer 

                to your quesiton "what is name of this object".

                 

                 

                >  The sphere is meant to mean the whole Universe…J 3-D as you know it…

                 

                Ok, I can go with that concept for now.

                 

                >  If there were no more info, you could conclude that I am saying 

                > that you can travel around the Universe and come back into the same 

                > place…. That is not true…  The Expanding part of the Expanding 

                > Hyperspherical Shock Wave Universe, describes a state of motion of 

                > the Universe…

                 

                Seems like I've heard similar scenarios like this before but I've yet 

                to grasp them.

                 

                >  

                >  

                > Now imagine that that circle is increasing radius at the speed of 

                > light (and has done that for 15 billion years)…  now that circle 

                > would be quite big… the receding distance between points in the 

                > circle could reach pi*c…

                 

                Ok

                 

                >  

                >  

                > Anything beyond one radian could never been seen…  Anything at one 

                > radian would be Doppler shifted to microwaves… Cosmic Microwave  

                > Background …

                 

                 

                What is a context of radian or what is radian in this context.  I 

                don't understand.

                 

                >  

                >  

                > Rybo… you might think about the Universe as a group of surfers 

                > surfing the mother of all waves…

                 

                Ok, but I'm not sure where you going with this scenario.

                 

                >  

                >  

                > I am afraid that that most appropriate name would be hyperconical 

                > hypercircle…

                 

                Ok, it appears you have answered your own question.

                 

                MP, you can attempt to answer or address any of the questions I 

                originally asked you( below ) that would  be great also.  Thanks

                Rybo

                 

                On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:05 AM, MP wrote: > Ps- by the way, if you have 

                any questions, please feel free to ask

                 

                 > them…

                 

                  MP,   x^2 + y^2 + z^2, If understand correctly defines 3 perpendicular

                edges/lines that would be one part( one third ) of the 12 edges of a

                 

                cube.

                 

                 

                E.g. the above could be stated as  1 + 1 + 1 = 3 if x, y and z  each

                 

                have value of 1.

                 

                 

                My only misperception in the above may be if z is either a  surface

                 

                or volumetric diagonal?

                 

                 

                But what is

                 

                w" in the formula w^2?  Width?

                 

                 

                If so then I don't follow.

                 

                 

                Also Im not sure how easily we t( time ) can accurate be reflected in

                 

                that formula but that may be my lack of mathematics and  physics i.e.

                 

                they do it all the time so there is no problem because size( ergo

                 

                space distance can only occur over a period of time.

                 

                 

                Anyway you if we say the value for all of the above is 1 then the r

                 

                ( ergo the radius? ) equals 4, when also adding in the "w" value of 1.

                 

                 

                Radius of the thing( whatever it correct named ) is 4.

                 

                 

                Im not sure why projected by you as curved circle or 5-D spherical

                 

                when in fact may  be more accurately dessribed as a polyhedron i.e.

                 

                sides or edges and not curves?

                 

                 

                Rybo

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                Yahoo! Groups Links

                 

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/

                 

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

                    TheoryOfEverything-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                 

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                 

                 

                 

                 

              • rybo6
                ... MP, are you familiar with the geodesic dome at FL. disneyland? Is it sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical. The higher the resolution the more times
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Aug 6, 2006, at 11:51 AM, MP wrote:
                  > I have to question your premises...:)
                  >
                  > Pick up a deflated balloon... inflate it ... see if you can see
                  > any straight lines...

                  MP, are you familiar with the geodesic dome at FL. disneyland? Is it
                  sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical.

                  The higher the resolution the more times you will always find there
                  is no such thing as a true physical sphere. A true, pure, perfect
                  sphere is and will eternally remain and metaphysical concept.

                  E.g is the moon a sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical
                  The most spherical thing made by humans are the quartz balls for
                  gravity probe B. If and when you have evidence of a true physical
                  sphere in universe I will reconsider my premis/hypothesis etc...

                  I will stop here for now and let you digest the above and the link
                  to it within the following poem below.
                  http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/19apr_gravitomagnetism.htm?
                  list77898

                  Quartz Balls
                  Rybo6 alias Os-jbug

                  Smooth beyond night,
                  They reflect each light,

                  Smooth beyond day,
                  They reflect each ray.

                  Equinimity of radii,
                  Balanced for Earths sky.

                  Balls in space,
                  Gravity they chase.

                  Spheres precessed,
                  In microns expressed.

                  Purity in love
                  Its realitys glove.

                  Rest in the beauty,
                  Rest in the sound,
                  Rest in the proximity,
                  Of perfectly round.
                • MP
                  _____ From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rybo6 Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 2:45 PM To:
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment

                     

                     


                    From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com [mailto: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of rybo6
                    Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 2:45 PM
                    To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [TheoryOfEverything] Hyperspherical, Hypertoroidal, hypercylindrical...:)

                     

                    On Aug 6, 2006, at 11:51 AM, MP wrote:

                    > I have to question your premises...: )
                    >
                    > Pick up a deflated balloon... inflate it ... see if you can see
                    > any straight lines...

                    MP, are you familiar with the geodesic dome at FL. disneyland? Is it
                    sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical.

                    Normally I would agree with such a powerful hypothesis…which basically states that if you look close enough things are not what they look like at far…, that is, a sphere is not a good fractal… as you look closer and closer the thing looks more like a straight line…  but then again, everything looks like composed of straight lines…if you look close enough….even a drawing of Mickey Mouse…

                    What you said is a tautology in the Taylor Expansion sense... Everything looks linear at close range..

                    That is a side argument and it is irrelevant to the topology proposed…


                    The higher the resolution the more times you will always find there
                    is no such thing as a true physical sphere. A true, pure, perfect
                    sphere is and will eternally remain and metaphysical concept.

                    Again, we are talking about Physics and the perfection of the sphere is of course irrelevant, specially if one remember that the local thickness of the Universe and thus its local Radius should fluctuate like any other physical quantity…


                    E.g is the moon a sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical
                    The most spherical thing made by humans are the quartz balls for
                    gravity probe B. If and when you have evidence of a true physical
                    sphere in universe I will reconsider my premis/hypothesis etc...

                    How perfect a sphere the Universe is only related to the duration of the Big Bang and some Symmetry Breakdown that might had occurred during that process…

                    It is not relevant since we are not discussing the baryonic content per quadrant of Cosmos…


                    I will stop here for now and let you digest the above and the link
                    to it within the following poem below.
                    http://science. nasa.gov/ headlines/ y2004/19apr_ gravitomagnetism .htm?
                    list77898

                    With respect to MagnetoGravitation… In my equations I created show gravitation, magnetism and electrostatics are derived from the same equation…that is,  there is only one interaction at distance … the recipient of that interaction will define the resulting Nature (gravitation, magnetism)…

                    That should be surprising…  if you invert the reasoning…   You don’t see people be surprised that the sandy on the beach doesn’t line itself up along Earth magnetic lines… or that your computer power supply positive (negative) outlet doesn’t (effectively) attract (repel) the wooden floor…  or water…

                    It is very clear, perhaps obviously clear that electricity and magnetism effects depend upon who are they acting upon…  There is a dogma that Gravitation is for everyone…J  My theory says not.!!..

                    Like any religious dogma, it should be verified and not accepted just because someone said so…

                    The eclipsing factor is that Gravitation is 10^36 or thereabouts stronger than Gravitation, so people can say things like “In the Schrodinger equation one neglect the effect of Gravitation because it is much smaller than Coulombic interaction)…

                    That would be great if there wasn’t a theory that would place both on the same level, like HU…J

                    In fact, I even go further and say that anti-matter produces anti-gravitation and that matter and anti-matter quantities in the Universe are perfectly matched…

                    If matter and anti-matter attract each other they would explode and the only remaining would be the net matter

                                            -If they just repeal each other, they would be running away from each other and no conclusion could be derived about quantities – this is

                    consistent with half-and-half content which is a requirement for my Cosmogenesis requirements.

                    Read it, Rybo… and see the light.. 

                    Don’t miss the forest by the trees …J

                    Cheers,

                     

                    MP

                  • christof139
                    What is so metaphysical about a sphere!??! Ha ha ha!! The surface of a sphere is composed of an infintisimal number of curved lines and they themselves are
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      What is so 'metaphysical' about a sphere!??!

                      Ha ha ha!!

                      The surface of a sphere is composed of an infintisimal number of
                      curved lines and they themselves are composed of an infintisimal
                      number of points.

                      Force vectors and a force itself may be induced to exhibit curvature
                      by gravity, electro-magnetic forces, and who knows what else acting
                      upon a force vector. Gravity and elcetro-magnetic force vectors may
                      themselves exhibit curvature through interaction of the two forces. A
                      beam of light may itself suffer curvature.

                      You are almost being semantical in trying to argue the
                      inconsequential.

                      Cristobal


                      --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, rybo6 <rybo6@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > On Aug 6, 2006, at 11:51 AM, MP wrote:
                      > > I have to question your premises...:)
                      > >
                      > > Pick up a deflated balloon... inflate it ... see if you can see
                      > > any straight lines...
                      >
                      > MP, are you familiar with the geodesic dome at FL. disneyland? Is
                      it
                      > sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical.
                      >
                      > The higher the resolution the more times you will always find
                      there
                      > is no such thing as a true physical sphere. A true, pure, perfect
                      > sphere is and will eternally remain and metaphysical concept.
                      >
                      > E.g is the moon a sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical
                      > The most spherical thing made by humans are the quartz balls for
                      > gravity probe B. If and when you have evidence of a true physical
                      > sphere in universe I will reconsider my premis/hypothesis etc...
                      >
                      > I will stop here for now and let you digest the above and the
                      link
                      > to it within the following poem below.
                      > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/19apr_gravitomagnetism.htm?
                      > list77898
                      >
                      > Quartz Balls
                      > Rybo6 alias Os-jbug
                      >
                      > Smooth beyond night,
                      > They reflect each light,
                      >
                      > Smooth beyond day,
                      > They reflect each ray.
                      >
                      > Equinimity of radii,
                      > Balanced for Earths sky.
                      >
                      > Balls in space,
                      > Gravity they chase.
                      >
                      > Spheres precessed,
                      > In microns expressed.
                      >
                      > Purity in love
                      > Its realitys glove.
                      >
                      > Rest in the beauty,
                      > Rest in the sound,
                      > Rest in the proximity,
                      > Of perfectly round.
                      >
                    • rybo6
                      ... MP, you questions my premis and I responded to that. If you had some other inccorrect premis by me in mind then you need be more specific when making
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Aug 6, 2006, at 3:44 PM, MP wrote:

                        > MP, are you familiar with the geodesic dome at FL. disneyland? Is it
                        > sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical.

                        > MP] Normally I would agree with such a powerful hypothesis…which
                        > basically states that if you look close enough things are not what
                        > they look like at far…, that is, a sphere is not a good fractal… as
                        > you look closer and closer the thing looks more like a straight
                        > line… but then again, everything looks like composed of straight
                        > lines…if you look close enough….even a drawing of Mickey Mouse…
                        >
                        > What you said is a tautology in the Taylor Expansion sense...
                        > Everything looks linear at close range..
                        >
                        > That is a side argument and it is irrelevant to the topology proposed…

                        MP, you questions my premis and I responded to that. If you had
                        some other inccorrect premis by me in mind then you need be more
                        specific when making such comments
                        .
                        >
                        > The higher the resolution the more times you will always find there
                        > is no such thing as a true physical sphere. A true, pure, perfect
                        > sphere is and will eternally remain and metaphysical concept.
                        >
                        >
                        > MP] Again, we are talking about Physics and the perfection of the
                        > sphere is of course irrelevant, specially if one remember that the
                        > local thickness of the Universe and thus its local Radius should
                        > fluctuate like any other physical quantity…

                        Ditto the above.

                        >
                        > E.g is the moon a sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical
                        > The most spherical thing made by humans are the quartz balls for
                        > gravity probe B. If and when you have evidence of a true physical
                        > sphere in universe I will reconsider my premis/hypothesis etc...
                        >
                        >
                        > MP] How perfect a sphere the Universe is only related to the
                        > duration of the Big Bang and some Symmetry Breakdown that might had
                        > occurred during that process…
                        >
                        > It is not relevant since we are not discussing the baryonic content
                        > per quadrant of Cosmos…


                        Until you be more specific in what premises of mine that is your are
                        questioning then I am left to guess as to what your comments are in
                        specific referrence to. Know what I mean?

                        Ditto the above.

                        >
                        > I will stop here for now and let you digest the above and the link
                        > to it within the following poem below.
                        > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/19apr_gravitomagnetism.htm?
                        > list77898
                        >
                        >
                        > MP] With respect to MagnetoGravitation… In my equations I created
                        > show gravitation, magnetism and electrostatics are derived from the
                        > same equation…that is, there is only one interaction at distance …
                        > the recipient of that interaction will define the resulting Nature
                        > (gravitation, magnetism)…
                        >
                        > That should be surprising… if you invert the reasoning… You
                        > don’t see people be surprised that the sandy on the beach doesn’t
                        > line itself up along Earth magnetic lines… or that your computer
                        > power supply positive (negative) outlet doesn’t (effectively)
                        > attract (repel) the wooden floor… or water…
                        >
                        > It is very clear, perhaps obviously clear that electricity and
                        > magnetism effects depend upon who are they acting upon… There is a
                        > dogma that Gravitation is for everyone…J My theory says not.!!..


                        I posted that link only regards to quartz balls and nothing else.
                        That was very clear in my comments.

                        All of the following is irrelevant to the your quesitoning of my
                        inital premises etc....

                        Ditto the above.


                        MP, please try and stick to the comments you have directed
                        ( *lighted* ) in my direction and to which I responded, and please
                        not some irrelevant *forest*.

                        Rybo



                        > Like any religious dogma, it should be verified and not accepted
                        > just because someone said so…
                        >
                        > The eclipsing factor is that Gravitation is 10^36 or thereabouts
                        > stronger than Gravitation, so people can say things like “In the
                        > Schrodinger equation one neglect the effect of Gravitation because
                        > it is much smaller than Coulombic interaction)…
                        >
                        > That would be great if there wasn’t a theory that would place both
                        > on the same level, like HU…J
                        >
                        > In fact, I even go further and say that anti-matter produces anti-
                        > gravitation and that matter and anti-matter quantities in the
                        > Universe are perfectly matched…
                        >
                        > If matter and anti-matter attract each other they would explode and
                        > the only remaining would be the net matter
                        >
                        > -If they just repeal each other, they would
                        > be running away from each other and no conclusion could be derived
                        > about quantities – this is
                        >
                        > consistent with half-and-half content which is a requirement for my
                        > Cosmogenesis requirements.
                        >
                        > Read it, Rybo… and see the light..
                        >
                        > Don’t miss the forest by the trees …J
                        >
                        > Cheers,
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > MP
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • christof139
                        Rybo babbles: Until you be more specific in what premises of mine that is your are questioning then I am left to guess as to what your comments are in
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Rybo babbles: 'Until you be more specific in what premises of mine
                          that is your are questioning then I am left to guess as to what your
                          comments are in specific referrence to. Know what I mean?'

                          Cristobal answers: Dear Mother Rybo, please learn to speak and write
                          English more properly first, before you babble.

                          It be's that way sometimes 'is you are' know etc.

                          Sincerely, Cristobal

                          --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, rybo6 <rybo6@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > On Aug 6, 2006, at 3:44 PM, MP wrote:
                          >
                          > > MP, are you familiar with the geodesic dome at FL. disneyland? Is
                          it
                          > > sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical.
                          >
                          > > MP] Normally I would agree with such a powerful hypothesis…which
                          > > basically states that if you look close enough things are not
                          what
                          > > they look like at far…, that is, a sphere is not a good fractal…
                          as
                          > > you look closer and closer the thing looks more like a straight
                          > > line… but then again, everything looks like composed of
                          straight
                          > > lines…if you look close enough….even a drawing of Mickey Mouse…
                          > >
                          > > What you said is a tautology in the Taylor Expansion sense...
                          > > Everything looks linear at close range..
                          > >
                          > > That is a side argument and it is irrelevant to the topology
                          proposed…
                          >
                          > MP, you questions my premis and I responded to that. If you had
                          > some other inccorrect premis by me in mind then you need be more
                          > specific when making such comments
                          > .
                          > >
                          > > The higher the resolution the more times you will always find
                          there
                          > > is no such thing as a true physical sphere. A true, pure, perfect
                          > > sphere is and will eternally remain and metaphysical concept.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > MP] Again, we are talking about Physics and the perfection of
                          the
                          > > sphere is of course irrelevant, specially if one remember that
                          the
                          > > local thickness of the Universe and thus its local Radius should
                          > > fluctuate like any other physical quantity…
                          >
                          > Ditto the above.
                          >
                          > >
                          > > E.g is the moon a sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical
                          > > The most spherical thing made by humans are the quartz balls for
                          > > gravity probe B. If and when you have evidence of a true physical
                          > > sphere in universe I will reconsider my premis/hypothesis etc...
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > MP] How perfect a sphere the Universe is only related to the
                          > > duration of the Big Bang and some Symmetry Breakdown that might
                          had
                          > > occurred during that process…
                          > >
                          > > It is not relevant since we are not discussing the baryonic
                          content
                          > > per quadrant of Cosmos…
                          >
                          >
                          > Until you be more specific in what premises of mine that is your
                          are
                          > questioning then I am left to guess as to what your comments are
                          in
                          > specific referrence to. Know what I mean?
                          >
                          > Ditto the above.
                          >
                          > >
                          > > I will stop here for now and let you digest the above and the link
                          > > to it within the following poem below.
                          > >
                          http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/19apr_gravitomagnetism.htm?
                          > > list77898
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > MP] With respect to MagnetoGravitation… In my equations I
                          created
                          > > show gravitation, magnetism and electrostatics are derived from
                          the
                          > > same equation…that is, there is only one interaction at distance
                          …
                          > > the recipient of that interaction will define the resulting
                          Nature
                          > > (gravitation, magnetism)…
                          > >
                          > > That should be surprising… if you invert the reasoning… You
                          > > don't see people be surprised that the sandy on the beach
                          doesn't
                          > > line itself up along Earth magnetic lines… or that your computer
                          > > power supply positive (negative) outlet doesn't (effectively)
                          > > attract (repel) the wooden floor… or water…
                          > >
                          > > It is very clear, perhaps obviously clear that electricity and
                          > > magnetism effects depend upon who are they acting upon… There is
                          a
                          > > dogma that Gravitation is for everyone…J My theory says not.!!..
                          >
                          >
                          > I posted that link only regards to quartz balls and nothing else.
                          > That was very clear in my comments.
                          >
                          > All of the following is irrelevant to the your quesitoning of my
                          > inital premises etc....
                          >
                          > Ditto the above.
                          >
                          >
                          > MP, please try and stick to the comments you have directed
                          > ( *lighted* ) in my direction and to which I responded, and
                          please
                          > not some irrelevant *forest*.
                          >
                          > Rybo
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > > Like any religious dogma, it should be verified and not accepted
                          > > just because someone said so…
                          > >
                          > > The eclipsing factor is that Gravitation is 10^36 or thereabouts
                          > > stronger than Gravitation, so people can say things like "In the
                          > > Schrodinger equation one neglect the effect of Gravitation
                          because
                          > > it is much smaller than Coulombic interaction)…
                          > >
                          > > That would be great if there wasn't a theory that would place
                          both
                          > > on the same level, like HU…J
                          > >
                          > > In fact, I even go further and say that anti-matter produces anti-

                          > > gravitation and that matter and anti-matter quantities in the
                          > > Universe are perfectly matched…
                          > >
                          > > If matter and anti-matter attract each other they would explode
                          and
                          > > the only remaining would be the net matter
                          > >
                          > > -If they just repeal each other, they
                          would
                          > > be running away from each other and no conclusion could be
                          derived
                          > > about quantities – this is
                          > >
                          > > consistent with half-and-half content which is a requirement for
                          my
                          > > Cosmogenesis requirements.
                          > >
                          > > Read it, Rybo… and see the light..
                          > >
                          > > Don't miss the forest by the trees …J
                          > >
                          > > Cheers,
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > MP
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • MP
                          Hi Rybo, MP, please try and stick to the comments you have directed ( *lighted* ) in my direction and to which I responded, and please not some irrelevant
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Hi Rybo,

                             

                             

                            MP, please try and stick to the comments you have  directed

                            (  *lighted* ) in my direction and to which I responded,  and please 

                            not some irrelevant *forest*.

                             

                             

                            If you were really interested in talking about crystal balls or the inexistence of a perfect sphere in Nature, that was really irrelevant to proposed topology, and of course, inconsequential would be the appropriated comment…

                             

                            I answered it in such a lengthy and thoughtful (I am sick and struggled to make some sense in creating your reply) because I consider that you give a lot of thought to geometric sources of cosmology… A perspective which I respect, although do not follow…

                             

                            This means, that my answer was a sign of respect.  I would be showing little to you, if I were to think that as a counter argument to a Hyperspherical topology, you are telling me about the inexistence of a perfect sphere...  I don’t think you did…

                             

                            I guess I was wrong…

                             

                            On the other hand, if you have problems understanding the theory and want to learn, you can read it… or ask me questions…

                             

                            If you ask me questions and I don’t answer to your satisfaction, please feel free to redirect my attention to what fine point you are asking me and I am missing…  I will always be happy to explain anything…

                             

                            I have sense of humor like anyone in this group… and sometimes will use hyperbolae to make a point… like seeing the light or forest by the trees… if that offends you, I am sorry…  Should I be sensitive because someone argues against a cosmological topology by telling me about an irrelevant side point…  I don’t think so…

                             

                            I am not changing that…

                             

                            My goal is to have a civilized discussion with one and everyone… Every time I clarify a point to you or someone else, I might be clarifying the same point to someone else… and that someone else might engage and ask more relevant questions..

                             

                            Nobody is perfect and there is no perfect sphere…

                             

                            MP

                             

                            PS – Further review of your message made it clear that the point that you are disagreeing is a very fine point

                            Until you be more specific in what premises of mine that is your are 

                            questioning then I am left to guess as to what your comments are in 

                            specific referrence to. Know what I mean?

                             

                            E.g is the moon a sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical
                            The most spherical thing made by humans are the quartz balls for
                            gravity probe B. If and when you have evidence of a true physical
                            sphere in universe I will reconsider my premis/hypothesis etc...

                             

                             

                            And that it is that there might not be a perfect sphere… or a perfect square or any perfect geometric figure..  Which I totally agree…made of stuff…  That is clearly correct, since stuff should be positioned in a place in space and there is an Uncertainty principle to deal with… so one cannot defined the position of stuff with infinite precision and thus one cannot create any geometric figure with stuff (whatever stuff is)…Thus one cannot define a perfect sphere, a perfect rectangle, triangle or anything made of matter or energy..

                             

                            My answer stated that how perfect the sphere is, is irrelevant to my model…

                             

                             

                             

                             

                             

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com [mailto: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of rybo6
                            Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 5:11 PM
                            To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [TheoryOfEverything] Hyperspherical, Hypertoroidal, hypercylindrical...:)

                             

                            On Aug 6, 2006, at 3:44 PM, MP wrote:

                             

                            > MP, are you familiar with the geodesic dome at FL. disneyland? Is it

                            > sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical.

                             

                            > MP] Normally I would agree with such a powerful hypothesis…which 

                            > basically states that if you look close enough things are not what 

                            > they look like at far…, that is, a sphere is not a good fractal… as 

                            > you look closer and closer the thing looks more like a straight 

                            > line…  but then again, everything looks like composed of straight 

                            > lines…if you look close enough….even a drawing of Mickey Mouse…

                            >  

                            > What you said is a tautology in the Taylor Expansion sense... 

                            > Everything looks linear at close range..

                            >  

                            > That is a side argument and it is irrelevant to the topology proposed…

                             

                            MP, you  questions my premis and I responded to that.  If you had 

                            some other inccorrect premis by  me in mind then you need be more 

                            specific when making such comments

                            .

                            >  

                            > The higher the resolution the more times you will always find there

                            > is no such thing as a true physical sphere. A true, pure, perfect

                            > sphere is and will eternally remain and metaphysical concept.

                            >  

                            >  

                            > MP] Again, we are talking about Physics and the perfection of the 

                            > sphere is of course irrelevant, specially if one remember that the 

                            > local thickness of the Universe and thus its local Radius should 

                            > fluctuate like any other physical quantity…

                             

                            Ditto the above.

                             

                            >  

                            > E.g is the moon a sphere? No it is not. It is a spherical

                            > The most spherical thing made by humans are the quartz balls for

                            > gravity probe B. If and when you have evidence of a true physical

                            > sphere in universe I will reconsider my premis/hypothesis etc...

                            >  

                            >  

                            > MP] How perfect a sphere the Universe is only related to the 

                            > duration of the Big Bang and some Symmetry Breakdown that might had 

                            > occurred during that process…

                            >  

                            > It is not relevant since we are not discussing the baryonic content 

                            > per quadrant of Cosmos…

                             

                             

                            Until you be more specific in what premises of mine that is your are 

                            questioning then I am left to guess as to what your comments are in 

                            specific referrence to. Know what I mean?

                             

                            Ditto the above.

                             

                            >  

                            > I will stop here for now and let you digest the above and the link

                            > to it within the following poem below.

                            > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/19apr_gravitomagnetism.htm?

                            > list77898

                            >  

                            >  

                            > MP] With respect to MagnetoGravitation… In my equations I created 

                            > show gravitation, magnetism and electrostatics are derived from the 

                            > same equation…that is,  there is only one interaction at distance … 

                            > the recipient of that interaction will define the resulting Nature 

                            > (gravitation, magnetism)…

                            >  

                            > That should be surprising…  if you invert the reasoning…   You 

                            > don’t see people be surprised that the sandy on the beach doesn’t 

                            > line itself up along Earth magnetic lines… or that your computer 

                            > power supply positive (negative) outlet doesn’t (effectively) 

                            > attract (repel) the wooden floor…  or water…

                            >  

                            > It is very clear, perhaps obviously clear that electricity and 

                            > magnetism effects depend upon who are they acting upon…  There is a 

                            > dogma that Gravitation is for everyone…J  My theory says not.!!..

                             

                             

                            I posted that link only regards to quartz balls and nothing else.  

                            That was very clear in my comments.

                             

                            All of the following is irrelevant to the your quesitoning of my 

                            inital premises etc....

                             

                            Ditto the above.

                             

                             

                            MP, please try and stick to the comments you have  directed

                            (  *lighted* ) in my direction and to which I responded,  and please 

                            not some irrelevant *forest*.

                             

                            Rybo

                             

                             

                             

                            > Like any religious dogma, it should be verified and not accepted 

                            > just because someone said so…

                            >  

                            > The eclipsing factor is that Gravitation is 10^36 or thereabouts 

                            > stronger than Gravitation, so people can say things like “In the 

                            > Schrodinger equation one neglect the effect of Gravitation because 

                            > it is much smaller than Coulombic interaction)…

                            >  

                            > That would be great if there wasn’t a theory that would place both 

                            > on the same level, like HU…J

                            >  

                            > In fact, I even go further and say that anti-matter produces anti-

                            > gravitation and that matter and anti-matter quantities in the 

                            > Universe are perfectly matched…

                            >  

                            > If matter and anti-matter attract each other they would explode and 

                            > the only remaining would be the net matter

                            >  

                            >                         -If they just repeal each other, they would 

                            > be running away from each other and no conclusion could be derived 

                            > about quantities – this is

                            >  

                            > consistent with half-and-half content which is a requirement for my 

                            > Cosmogenesis requirements.

                            >  

                            > Read it, Rybo… and see the light..

                            >  

                            > Don’t miss the forest by the trees …J

                            >  

                            > Cheers,

                            >  

                            >  

                            >  

                            > MP

                            >  

                            >  

                            >

                             

                             

                             

                             

                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                             

                            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/

                             

                            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

                                TheoryOfEverything-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                             

                            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

                                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                             

                             

                             

                          • rybo6
                            ... Ok, so you think it is a hyper circle then. ... Too deep for me. I need big dummies guide( simpler steps ) to your explanation radians relevance to your
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Aug 6, 2006, at 11:51 AM, MP wrote:
                              > I see a circle. If it represents a *sphere* then that is the answer
                              >
                              > to your question "what is name of this object".
                              >
                              > MP] It is a circle along each on of the three cross sections XR,
                              > YR and ZR
                              >
                              > XY,XZ and YZ cross-sections are undefined since there are no
                              > fingerprints of the shock-wave along those directions…they do not
                              > cross the wave …
                              >
                              > Fi (cosmological time) versus R cross section is just a straight
                              > line R=c*Fi
                              >
                              > So it is more complex than just a circle… that is why I suspect I
                              > would call it a hypercircle…

                              Ok, so you think it is a hyper circle then.


                              > > Anything beyond one radian could never been seen… Anything at one
                              >
                              > > radian would be Doppler shifted to microwaves… Cosmic Microwave
                              >
                              > > Background …
                              >
                              > RY] What is a context of radian or what is radian in this context. I
                              >
                              > don't understand.
                              >
                              > MP] The proposed Universe is 5-D which means 3D(X,Y,Z) x R.Theta
                              > where R is the dimensional age of the Universe (c*age of the
                              > Universe) and Theta is the Cosmological Angle)… Of course, you can
                              > always locate anything in the X,Y,Z space if you have ThetaX,
                              > ThetaY, ThetaZ… Those coordinates define an absolute position on
                              > the 5D Universe; it doesn’t define the state of motion… The state
                              > of motion is defined by two angles… one real and another imaginary…


                              Too deep for me. I need big dummies guide( simpler steps ) to your
                              explanation radians relevance to your graphic and then physics. Sorry.

                              > The real angle is associated with an absolute rotation around the
                              > axis perpendicular to RX.. and the other rotation is the Lorentz
                              > Transformation…an imaginary angle rotation around the axis
                              > perpendicular to XFi (FI is the Cosmological time perpendicular to
                              > the green circle in the figure)…

                              Radian is rotation around and xis that is perpendicular to RX, in
                              your graphic?

                              > In other words…something away by one radian would be circa 15
                              > billion light years away…

                              Oh oK now that I think is what I was the kind of info I was wanting
                              to know related. A radian in this circumstance equals 15 billion
                              light years. Thank you.

                              >
                              >
                              > My only misperception in the above may be if z is either a surface
                              > or volumetric diagonal? But what is w" in the formula w^2? Width?
                              >
                              > MP] W in that general formula for a 5-D Hypersphere is any 5-D
                              > Cartesian coordinate w…


                              Ok, whatever that is? W always meant width to me. I understand XYZ's
                              orientation to each other but not "w". Maybe I need to study the
                              graphic more to find out. I dunno

                              > The object is clearly not a Hypersphere… and I didn’t want people
                              > to conclude that the theory was bad just because I used imperfect
                              > nomenclature… From what I know, the topology was never thought,
                              > conjectured before and the object has no name…

                              No name but your best guess is a hypercircle.

                              >
                              >
                              > In any event, I created a pretty convincing argument in its favor,
                              > by adding to the its clarity in explaining Universe expansion
                              > without the need of Dark Matter, Dark Force…etc.. the lack of
                              > constantness of the Hubble Constant, the Cosmic Microwave
                              > Background, the reason of inertial motion (Newton’s First Law)… and
                              > a Grand Unification Theory…
                              >
                              > If I miss something, please feel free to ask me directly…
                              >
                              > I am barely better from a nasty flu…

                              MP, two times in my life I had heavy thoughts of death of my own
                              consciousness. Once was with a nasty flu. After 3 days of fever and
                              almost no sleep I thought that some humans could not go on in those
                              states of conscicouness without think of dying or wanting to kill
                              themselves :(

                              The other time was allergic reations to some mushsrooms. I think it
                              was closet to food posioning like symptons I ever had. Felt like all
                              my systems were shutting down all the way out to my finger and toe
                              tips. :(


                              Rybo
                              >
                              >
                              > Cheers, Rybo
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > MP
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
                              > [mailto:TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rybo6
                              > Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 12:46 AM
                              > To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [TheoryOfEverything] Hyperspherical, Hypertoroidal,
                              > hypercylindrical...:)
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:42 PM, MP wrote:
                              >
                              > > I know that you like polyhedrons... but is a bubble better
                              >
                              > > described by a polyhedron or by a sphere... are the waves on a
                              >
                              > > pond (created by rain drops) ...
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > MP, I don't know. I do know( think I know ) that there is no such
                              >
                              > thing as *true* sphere in physical reality but only varing
                              >
                              > frequencies of polyhedra's with the higher frequencies approaching
                              >
                              > ( sphericity ) being a *true* sphere but never attaining such
                              >
                              > metaphyscially conceptual perfection.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > Before embarking in understanding possible interpretations that I
                              >
                              > > might have missed in my model... it is always a good idea to start
                              >
                              > > from a good understanding from that the model says..
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > That is why I asked the questions regaring specifics statments in
                              >
                              > your email message and blog.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > Above you see a sphere… and the Letter X… If this sphere were our
                              >
                              > > World, I would be meaning that you can go around and come back to
                              >
                              > > the same place…
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > I see a circle. If it represents a *sphere* then that is the answer
                              >
                              > to your quesiton "what is name of this object".
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > The sphere is meant to mean the whole Universe…J 3-D as you know
                              > it…
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Ok, I can go with that concept for now.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > If there were no more info, you could conclude that I am saying
                              >
                              > > that you can travel around the Universe and come back into the same
                              >
                              > > place…. That is not true… The Expanding part of the Expanding
                              >
                              > > Hyperspherical Shock Wave Universe, describes a state of motion of
                              >
                              > > the Universe…
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Seems like I've heard similar scenarios like this before but I've yet
                              >
                              > to grasp them.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > Now imagine that that circle is increasing radius at the speed of
                              >
                              > > light (and has done that for 15 billion years)… now that circle
                              >
                              > > would be quite big… the receding distance between points in the
                              >
                              > > circle could reach pi*c…
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Ok
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > Anything beyond one radian could never been seen… Anything at one
                              >
                              > > radian would be Doppler shifted to microwaves… Cosmic Microwave
                              >
                              > > Background …
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > What is a context of radian or what is radian in this context. I
                              >
                              > don't understand.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > Rybo… you might think about the Universe as a group of surfers
                              >
                              > > surfing the mother of all waves…
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Ok, but I'm not sure where you going with this scenario.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > I am afraid that that most appropriate name would be hyperconical
                              >
                              > > hypercircle…
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Ok, it appears you have answered your own question.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > MP, you can attempt to answer or address any of the questions I
                              >
                              > originally asked you( below ) that would be great also. Thanks
                              >
                              > Rybo
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:05 AM, MP wrote: > Ps- by the way, if you have
                              >
                              > any questions, please feel free to ask
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > them…
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > MP, x^2 + y^2 + z^2, If understand correctly defines 3
                              > perpendicular
                              >
                              > edges/lines that would be one part( one third ) of the 12 edges of a
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > cube.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > E.g. the above could be stated as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 if x, y and z each
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > have value of 1.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > My only misperception in the above may be if z is either a surface
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > or volumetric diagonal?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > But what is
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > w" in the formula w^2? Width?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > If so then I don't follow.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Also Im not sure how easily we t( time ) can accurate be reflected in
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > that formula but that may be my lack of mathematics and physics i.e.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > they do it all the time so there is no problem because size( ergo
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > space distance can only occur over a period of time.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Anyway you if we say the value for all of the above is 1 then the r
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ( ergo the radius? ) equals 4, when also adding in the "w" value of 1.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Radius of the thing( whatever it correct named ) is 4.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Im not sure why projected by you as curved circle or 5-D spherical
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > when in fact may be more accurately dessribed as a polyhedron i.e.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > sides or edges and not curves?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Rybo
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > TheoryOfEverything-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • rybo6
                              ... Well sorry MP but maybe there was a miscomunication when you questioned my premises . I read below and it appears we have got that out of way now. ...
                              Message 14 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Aug 6, 2006, at 5:40 PM, MP wrote:
                                > MP, please try and stick to the comments you have directed
                                >
                                > ( *lighted* ) in my direction and to which I responded, and please
                                >
                                > not some irrelevant *forest*.
                                >
                                > MP] If you were really interested in talking about crystal balls
                                > or the inexistence of a perfect sphere in Nature, that was really
                                > irrelevant to proposed topology, and of course, inconsequential
                                > would be the appropriated comment…


                                Well sorry MP but maybe there was a miscomunication when you
                                questioned my "premises". I read below and it appears we have got
                                that out of way now.

                                > I have sense of humor like anyone in this group… and sometimes will
                                > use hyperbolae to make a point… like seeing the light or forest by
                                > the trees… if that offends you, I am sorry… Should I be sensitive
                                > because someone argues against a cosmological topology by telling
                                > me about an irrelevant side point… I don’t think so…

                                Just felt you were making "light" fo my serious response to your
                                "premises" comments.
                                Were cool now, in those regards, I think.
                                >
                                > My goal is to have a civilized discussion with one and everyone…
                                > Every time I clarify a point to you or someone else, I might be
                                > clarifying the same point to someone else… and that someone else
                                > might engage and ask more relevant questions..


                                Same here.

                                >
                                >
                                > Nobody is perfect and there is no perfect sphere…

                                Oh good. Were on same track and in agreement to boot. :)

                                It can be so difficult to have clarity via emails that are typed
                                rapidly and poorly by myself. Sorry, I have no excuses for that lack
                                of grammar on my part of the dialogue.


                                Rybo
                              • MP
                                Rybo, Thanks for being understanding... ... From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rybo6 Sent:
                                Message 15 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Rybo,

                                  Thanks for being understanding...

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
                                  [mailto:TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rybo6
                                  Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 6:56 PM
                                  To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [TheoryOfEverything] Hyperspherical, Hypertoroidal,
                                  hypercylindrical...:)

                                  On Aug 6, 2006, at 5:40 PM, MP wrote:
                                  > MP, please try and stick to the comments you have directed
                                  >
                                  > ( *lighted* ) in my direction and to which I responded, and please
                                  >
                                  > not some irrelevant *forest*.
                                  >
                                  > MP] If you were really interested in talking about crystal balls
                                  > or the inexistence of a perfect sphere in Nature, that was really
                                  > irrelevant to proposed topology, and of course, inconsequential
                                  > would be the appropriated comment.


                                  Well sorry MP but maybe there was a miscomunication when you
                                  questioned my "premises". I read below and it appears we have got
                                  that out of way now.

                                  > I have sense of humor like anyone in this group. and sometimes will
                                  > use hyperbolae to make a point. like seeing the light or forest by
                                  > the trees. if that offends you, I am sorry. Should I be sensitive
                                  > because someone argues against a cosmological topology by telling
                                  > me about an irrelevant side point. I don't think so.

                                  Just felt you were making "light" fo my serious response to your
                                  "premises" comments.
                                  Were cool now, in those regards, I think.
                                  >
                                  > My goal is to have a civilized discussion with one and everyone.
                                  > Every time I clarify a point to you or someone else, I might be
                                  > clarifying the same point to someone else. and that someone else
                                  > might engage and ask more relevant questions..


                                  Same here.

                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Nobody is perfect and there is no perfect sphere.

                                  Oh good. Were on same track and in agreement to boot. :)

                                  It can be so difficult to have clarity via emails that are typed
                                  rapidly and poorly by myself. Sorry, I have no excuses for that lack
                                  of grammar on my part of the dialogue.


                                  Rybo




                                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                                • MP
                                  Rybo, I an including the answers within the embedded text. ... From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Aug 6, 2006
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    Rybo,

                                     

                                    I an including the answers within the embedded text…

                                     

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com [mailto: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of rybo6
                                    Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 6:46 PM
                                    To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [TheoryOfEverything] Hyperspherical, Hypertoroidal, hypercylindrical...:)

                                     

                                    On Aug 6, 2006, at 11:51 AM, MP wrote:

                                    > I see a circle. If it represents a *sphere* then that is the answer

                                    >  

                                    > to your question "what is name of this object".

                                    >  

                                    >  MP] It is a circle along each on of the three cross sections XR, 

                                    > YR and ZR

                                    >  

                                    >  XY,XZ and YZ cross-sections are undefined since there are no 

                                    > fingerprints of the shock-wave along those directions…they do not 

                                    > cross the wave …

                                    >  

                                    >  Fi (cosmological time) versus R cross section is just a straight 

                                    > line R=c*Fi

                                    >  

                                    >  So it is more complex than just a circle… that is why I suspect I 

                                    > would call it a hypercircle…

                                     

                                    Ok, so you think it is a hyper circle then.

                                    The name wasn’t important… It was a rhetorical question… an it was important that people would consider me an ignoramus because I did not recognize the object as non-hyperspherical…

                                    The other reason for the question is to engage people to think about the topology… I do believe it is bold as hell (if I had a name to protect, I would think a zillion times before subscribing to such a crazy concept)…J and innovative… It simplifies everything…

                                     

                                    >  > Anything beyond one radian could never been seen…  Anything at one

                                    >  

                                    > > radian would be Doppler shifted to microwaves… Cosmic Microwave

                                    >  

                                    > > Background …

                                    >  

                                    >  RY] What is a context of radian or what is radian in this context.  I

                                    >  

                                    > don't understand.

                                    >  

                                    >  MP] The proposed Universe is 5-D which means 3D(X,Y,Z) x R.Theta   

                                    > where R is the dimensional age of the Universe (c*age of the 

                                    > Universe) and Theta is the Cosmological Angle)…  Of course, you can 

                                    > always locate anything in the X,Y,Z space if you have ThetaX, 

                                    > ThetaY, ThetaZ…  Those coordinates define an absolute position on 

                                    > the 5D Universe; it doesn’t define the state of motion… The state 

                                    > of motion is defined by two angles… one real and another imaginary…

                                     

                                     

                                    Too deep for me.  I need big dummies guide( simpler steps ) to your 

                                    explanation radians relevance to your graphic and then physics. Sorry.

                                     

                                    >  The real angle is associated with an absolute rotation around the 

                                    > axis perpendicular to RX.. and the other rotation is the Lorentz 

                                    > Transformation…an imaginary angle rotation around the axis 

                                    > perpendicular to XFi (FI is the Cosmological time perpendicular to 

                                    > the green circle in the figure)…

                                     

                                    Radian is rotation around and xis that is perpendicular to RX, in 

                                    your graphic?

                                     

                                    >  In other words…something away by one radian would be circa 15 

                                    > billion light years away…

                                     

                                    Oh oK now that I think is what I was the kind of info I was wanting 

                                    to know related.  A radian in this circumstance equals 15 billion 

                                    light years. Thank you.

                                     

                                    Since the 3-D is curved and with a radius of curvature equal to the age of the universe time c, 15 billion light years in any direction would be a radian in the picture..

                                     

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > My only misperception in the above may be if z is either a  surface 

                                    > or volumetric diagonal? But what is w" in the formula w^2?  Width?

                                    >  

                                    >  MP] W in that general formula for a 5-D Hypersphere is any 5-D 

                                    > Cartesian coordinate w…

                                     

                                     

                                    Ok, whatever that is?  W always meant width to me. I understand XYZ's 

                                    orientation to each other but not "w".  Maybe I need to study the 

                                    graphic more to find out.  I dunno

                                     

                                    If you think Cartesian coordinates… x,y,z… what comes after z in your mind, then that letter should replace w….  it is just a Cartesian representation in a 4-D space…

                                     

                                    >  The object is clearly not a Hypersphere… and I didn’t want people 

                                    > to conclude that the theory was bad just because I used imperfect 

                                    > nomenclature…  From what I know, the topology was never thought, 

                                    > conjectured before and the object has no name…

                                     

                                    No name  but your best guess is a hypercircle.

                                     

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > In any event, I created a pretty convincing argument in its favor, 

                                    > by adding to the its clarity in explaining Universe expansion 

                                    > without the need of Dark Matter, Dark Force…etc.. the lack of 

                                    > constantness of the Hubble Constant, the Cosmic Microwave 

                                    > Background, the reason of inertial motion ( Newton ’s First Law)… and 

                                    > a Grand Unification Theory…

                                    >  

                                    >  If I miss something, please feel free to ask me directly…

                                    >  

                                    >  I am barely better from a nasty flu…

                                     

                                    MP, two times in my life I had heavy thoughts of death of my own 

                                    consciousness. Once was with a nasty flu.  After 3 days of fever and 

                                    almost no sleep I thought that some humans could not go on in those 

                                    states of conscicouness without think of dying or wanting to kill 

                                    themselves :(

                                     

                                    The other time was allergic reations to some mushsrooms.  I think it 

                                    was closet to food posioning like symptons I ever had.  Felt like all 

                                    my systems were shutting down all the way out to my finger and toe 

                                    tips. :(

                                     

                                    I am getting out to go for a run… Nice to be alive ..


                                    Cheers,

                                     

                                    MP

                                     

                                     

                                    Rybo

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Cheers, Rybo

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > MP

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > -----Original Message-----

                                    > From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com

                                    > [mailto: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of rybo6

                                    > Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 12:46 AM

                                    > To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com

                                    > Subject: Re: [TheoryOfEverything] Hyperspherical, Hypertoroidal, 

                                    > hypercylindrical...:)

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:42 PM, MP wrote:

                                    >  

                                    > > I know that you like polyhedrons...  but is a bubble better

                                    >  

                                    > > described by a polyhedron or by a sphere...  are the waves on a

                                    >  

                                    > > pond (created by rain drops) ...

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > MP, I don't know.  I do know( think I know ) that there is no such

                                    >  

                                    > thing as *true* sphere in physical reality but only varing

                                    >  

                                    > frequencies of polyhedra's with the higher frequencies approaching

                                    >  

                                    > ( sphericity ) being a *true*  sphere but never attaining such

                                    >  

                                    > metaphyscially conceptual perfection.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > >  Before embarking in understanding possible interpretations that I

                                    >  

                                    > > might have missed in my model... it is always a good idea to start

                                    >  

                                    > > from a good understanding from that the model says..

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > That is why I asked the questions regaring specifics statments in

                                    >  

                                    > your email message and blog.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > >  Above you see a sphere… and the Letter X… If this sphere were our

                                    >  

                                    > > World, I would be meaning that you can go around and come back to

                                    >  

                                    > > the same place…

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > I see a circle. If it represents a *sphere* then that is the answer

                                    >  

                                    > to your quesiton "what is name of this object".

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > >  The sphere is meant to mean the whole Universe…J 3-D as you know 

                                    > it…

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Ok, I can go with that concept for now.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > >  If there were no more info, you could conclude that I am saying

                                    >  

                                    > > that you can travel around the Universe and come back into the same

                                    >  

                                    > > place…. That is not true…  The Expanding part of the Expanding

                                    >  

                                    > > Hyperspherical Shock Wave Universe, describes a state of motion of

                                    >  

                                    > > the Universe…

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Seems like I've heard similar scenarios like this before but I've yet

                                    >  

                                    > to grasp them.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > >

                                    >  

                                    > >

                                    >  

                                    > > Now imagine that that circle is increasing radius at the speed of

                                    >  

                                    > > light (and has done that for 15 billion years)…  now that circle

                                    >  

                                    > > would be quite big… the receding distance between points in the

                                    >  

                                    > > circle could reach pi*c…

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Ok

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > >

                                    >  

                                    > >

                                    >  

                                    > > Anything beyond one radian could never been seen…  Anything at one

                                    >  

                                    > > radian would be Doppler shifted to microwaves… Cosmic Microwave

                                    >  

                                    > > Background …

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > What is a context of radian or what is radian in this context.  I

                                    >  

                                    > don't understand.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > >

                                    >  

                                    > >

                                    >  

                                    > > Rybo… you might think about the Universe as a group of surfers

                                    >  

                                    > > surfing the mother of all waves…

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Ok, but I'm not sure where you going with this scenario.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > >

                                    >  

                                    > >

                                    >  

                                    > > I am afraid that that most appropriate name would be hyperconical

                                    >  

                                    > > hypercircle…

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Ok, it appears you have answered your own question.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > MP, you can attempt to answer or address any of the questions I

                                    >  

                                    > originally asked you( below ) that would  be great also.  Thanks

                                    >  

                                    > Rybo

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:05 AM, MP wrote: > Ps- by the way, if you have

                                    >  

                                    > any questions, please feel free to ask

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  > them…

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >   MP,   x^2 + y^2 + z^2, If understand correctly defines 3 

                                    > perpendicular

                                    >  

                                    > edges/lines that would be one part( one third ) of the 12 edges of a

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > cube.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > E.g. the above could be stated as  1 + 1 + 1 = 3 if x, y and z  each

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > have value of 1.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > My only misperception in the above may be if z is either a  surface

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > or volumetric diagonal?

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > But what is

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > w" in the formula w^2?  Width?

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > If so then I don't follow.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Also Im not sure how easily we t( time ) can accurate be reflected in

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > that formula but that may be my lack of mathematics and  physics i.e.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > they do it all the time so there is no problem because size( ergo

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > space distance can only occur over a period of time.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Anyway you if we say the value for all of the above is 1 then the r

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > ( ergo the radius? ) equals 4, when also adding in the "w" value of 1.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Radius of the thing( whatever it correct named ) is 4.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Im not sure why projected by you as curved circle or 5-D spherical

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > when in fact may  be more accurately dessribed as a polyhedron i.e.

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > sides or edges and not curves?

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Rybo

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    >  

                                    > Yah

                                    (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.