"BURT" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
On Dec 27, 4:05 pm, "Larry Snyder" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Oppopsite: BIgBang is energy buildup.
Mitch Raemsch

If you're willing to side step time, there is an arguement for increased
complexity requiring bang potentials. This can evolve to a multiverse
mixing, but there is no case for a big bang.
Curosity. Are you one of the drivers for the mass unconsciousness? If so,
how's the guy with the big white ball getting along?

"BURT" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
On Dec 27, 5:59 pm, BURT <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Where is the universe?

It is on the surface of the hypersphere.

Mitch Raemsch

A 4d universe can contain an infinite number of 3d universes. The 4d
universe we live in is not necessarily a hypersphere. The multiverse
probably doesn't exist yet. Existence requires a set of interlocking rules
that are stable. This eliminates an infinity squared possibilities. A good
definition of a universe does not exist that I know of. Perhaps some work in
that direction would be interesting. Something that may help would be able
to "see" in the 4th dimension. There is a simple exercise that can help.
Here's how: In a dark place, close your eyes and look. After a while, you
will see different shades of black. It is necessary to maintain
concentration or you may have to start over. After a while longer, you will
see distinct patterns. Later, when colors appear, shift your attention from
one eye to the other. Change the patterns intentionally. There will be
flashes. Remember the feeling. After a few days, remember the feeling
during the day. You will see a fog. There are things in the fog. This is
the spring board to a whole new set of physics. Enjoy.

Wow Thanks See other post for a new adventure.
Larry
"Ralph Hertle" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

I can't agree with what you say for a number of reasons. One, is that
there is a lack of logical or factual basis; two, some of the assertions
claimed to be conclusions are not necessary results of the premises,
three, I have concluded different results from the facts available to
me, and four, I don't understand what you are speaking of.

Without a detailed evaluation I'll just mention or name the items of
disagreement.

That is a fallacy that was falsified by Pythagoras. He 'separated', or
to us, conceptualized, the concept of a number system based upon powers
of a number. His great achievement was the number series of, X^n .

That had its origins by producing solid squares and cubes on straight
lines of selected or chance lengths. It was seen by Pythagoras that X
could be multiplied by itself zero, one, two, three, and. . . . . four,
and five times, and so on a selected number of times. He first
conceptualized the number system, or to him, concept of number, that is
based on the number of times another given number could be multiplied
times the base, or medial, number. The so called Pythagorean Theorem
concerning the solution of the lengths of the sides of right, and later,
all, triangles was a method of validating the number based upon powers.
He also discovered submultiple powers that are the reciprocal ratios of
the base number. Eudoxus took that a step further in his studies of the
proportionality of commensurable and incommensurable numbers and powers
of numbers.

I am a student of geometry, however, I suspect that many modern
mathematicians get their concepts of number from a single paragraph of
Time-Life Books. For example, some deny the validity of Euclid in the
mathematics of physic because they claim that Euclid's geometry is
devoted to 'flat' planes. The truth is otherwise. Euclid's "Elements"
and other books were devoted all the solutions to problems in 3D solid
geometry. Where a proof would reduce to two dimensions to get the point
across, the Z coordinated was deleted as irrelevant to the task. That
doesn't mean that the proof was not valid in a solid context. The
posturers of the supposed anti-Euclid mathematics of physics are wrong.
The facts don't support what they say.

Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Aristotle, and Euclid, for example, all denied the
Platonic notion of 'infinity'. To them 'infinity' was impossible to
demonstrate in logic and in actuality. To Aristotle it was a Platonic
religious idea that was a claimed potential that its proponents could
never actualize with particular numbers or materials. I've written
several commentaries on Usenet on the false claims that "infinity' was a
continuous concept, when in fact, continuity is the basis for the
universality of all concepts. 'Infinity' is an anti-concept that has no
meaning anywhere in ideas or in actuality. "Infinity" is an attempt to
block the valid use of provable concepts in the study of ideas and the
universe. I propose that the concept of "continuity" be used instead of
'infinity', and that the symbol used be a circle with a single radius
line drawn horizontally from the center to the circumference on the
right. It would be a "C" in shape. It would drop out of most equations
due to the principle of 'equals subtracted from equals are equal",
another Euclidean concept that is based upon the principle of the
'identity'. That would make any use of the notion of 'infinity' an
impossibility or merely an incomplete, unsolvable and indeterminate
statement.

"Not necessarily"? Where do you get that? I other words you don't
actually know if it is or not.

The universe is a continuing plurality of physically existing things,
and a hypersphere is a mathematical idea. [My definition.]

There is no physical hypersphere in the universe or that encloses the
physical universe.

That's another false idea. You ran that out to see if there's a
response. You and nobody else knows for sure if there is what you say or
not.

Rules? Why not the existence, properties, potentials for change,
relationships, and functionings of physically existing entities? Cause
and effect are not rules, for example.

This eliminates an infinity squared possibilities.

Insanity. That means nothing whatsoever.

I just gave you one, and I've provided several similar definitions in
slightly different contexts in other threads on Usenet.

Are you going to make us go through the history of geometry and
mathematics all over again? Starting with Thales and Pythagoras?

No one can see anything other than physical photons of certain energy
levels.

The 4th dimension is a concept of a number only, e.g., X^4, and it has
no physical existence.

The sensations that seem to be in the eye or in the nervous system that
create what seem to be visual effects would be of interest. I'll bet
five dollars that Human Factors Psychologists and Human Factors
Engineers have produced a large number of experiments of the nature and
causes of visual phenomenon. Prior to making a fool of your self, I
suggest that you study the prior art on the subject.

This is

No, that would be the science of Applied Experimental Psychology.

On Dec 27, 5:59*pm, BURT <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Mitch Multi-universe are created by black holes reaching their
critical mass. Nature only produces in pairs,and that means our
parrel universe is positive. Reality is there are as many universes
in the cosmos as flakes of snow in an endless storm. All are exactly
alike right down to their number of electrons. It is all part of
natures balancing act. Sunbeam & Bert