- this is like a riff to a song 'I’m still working out..
**From:**George T. Pantos**Sent:**Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:26 PM**Subject:**[hameltech] i think i better post this in case anything happens to me..oh by the way if I disappear call it Gazoo theory..work in progress.. just preliminary haven’t really figured it out yet..I have said before that E=mu^3 with u being the curvature. u=1/r in two dimensions. see footnote.in three dimensions I believe curvature is 1/r^2 in four dimension curvature is 1/r^3 thus E=mu^3 also being equal to E=mc^2NOW HERE IS MY POINT. now draw the hypotenuse to the triangle formed and that is c. I have to make a bit of an assumption here. that this applies in general terms, to all dimensions. just being sort of a rule. when u what is ..?? tesseract or is it transform.. from one dimension to the next.. so u have the general Pythagorean theorem*a^2 + b^2=c^2*remember that when I started I said 4 dimensions. so r would be r^3. BUT YET c is still c^2. but maybe this a flaw .. maybe it isn’t. afterall I’m making this stuff up. creative license. so will assume r here, means r^3 and c stays the traditional c for the hypotenuse and c^2 in Pythagorean equation. so we’ll speak in more general terms. just A RULE OF NATURE WHEN GOING BETWEEN DIMENSIONS. THE a^2 in the Pythagorean theorem is the radius of curvature of the dimension being described. and who knows what c is.. hypoteneuse.. dimensional differential..?? plancks constant h.. hypoteneuse.. looking at it with the Pythagorean theorem, is a key that leads us into further understanding.. the

u know what, I’ve been working on this all morning.. I keep running into more material. I’m tired I’ll get back with u..footnote:A circle is a one-dimensional object, although one can

*embed*it into a two-dimensional object. More precisely, it is a one-dimensional manifold. Manifolds admit an abstract description which is independent of a choice of embedding: for example, if you believe string theorists, there is a 10- or 11- or 26-dimensional manifold that describes space-time and a few extra dimensions, and we can study this manifold without embedding it into some larger R*n*.Incidentally, you might guess that

*n*-dimensional things ought to be embeddable into R*n*+1 (*n*+1-dimensional space). Actually, this is false: there are intrinsically*n*-dimensional things, such as the Klein bottle (which is 2-dimensional) which can't be embedded into R*n*+1. The Klein bottle does admit an embedding into R4. More generally, the Whitney embedding theorem tells you that smooth*n*-dimensional manifolds can be embedded into R2*n*for*n*>0, and for topological manifolds see this MO question.There are also other notions of dimension more general than that for manifolds: see the Wikipedia article.

also see..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_curve important..