On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature they

happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal mathematics

then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it would

seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.
Hello Tim G.
For my theoretical physical theories, pure mathematics was
used to a high degree. And then, experimental knowledge from
the past was used to check if the geometric math seemed accurate.
It was.

Nuclear structure and shape were mysteries to standard science
until I used geometric reasoning to evaluate the shape of the
iron nucleus. The success of my "Static Nucleus Theory of the
Face-Armored Cubic Lattice" is a perfect example for your question.
(To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?)

You ask, "does the ideal mathematics then provide emergent
spacetime without any physics?"

Yes. A simple cubic lattice of protons and neutrons exists in the
cores of all elements beyond boron. The three dimensions RxRxR
are now proven to be important. By using a cubic core, the outer
skin of each nucleus is armored by a hexagonal close-pack shape.
That provides eternal, static existence of the chemical elements.

My hardcover book, 535 pages
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BMDMHVFX
https://pyramidalcube.blogspot.com/
Alan Folmsbee, MSEE 1989

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 10:01:21 AM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature

they happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal mathematics

then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it would

seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Hello Tim G.
For my theoretical physical theories, pure mathematics was
used to a high degree. And then, experimental knowledge from
the past was used to check if the geometric math seemed accurate.
It was.

Nuclear structure and shape were mysteries to standard science
until I used geometric reasoning to evaluate the shape of the
iron nucleus. The success of my "Static Nucleus Theory of the
Face-Armored Cubic Lattice" is a perfect example for your question.
(To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?)

You ask, "does the ideal mathematics then provide emergent
spacetime without any physics?"

Yes. A simple cubic lattice of protons and neutrons exists in the
cores of all elements beyond boron. The three dimensions RxRxR
are now proven to be important. By using a cubic core, the outer
skin of each nucleus is armored by a hexagonal close-pack shape.
That provides eternal, static existence of the chemical elements.

My hardcover book, 535 pages
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BMDMHVFX
https://pyramidalcube.blogspot.com/
Alan Folmsbee, MSEE 1989

Well, Alan, wouldn't you admit that atomic theory is heavily reliant upon empirical data?
In effect it is a curve fitter's paradise.
Once one curve goes bad an alteration is introduced; raising the complexity of the system, but maintaining a match to empirical evidence.

If we had a forward theory it would not rely upon the empirical, but would reconnect with the empirical in hindsight. This then is the mark of a pure theory, and we really ought to have a word for the prickly thicket that has become modern physics with
its mixed form obscured by its adherents. Of course in kind those of us who favor pure theory will have to admit that we don't actually have it yet. That we could be in such a position on the long arc of progress is entirely feasible. What, we will point
our finger at Newton's alchemy, and ignore our own? Clearly it is in hindsight that fingers will be pointing at our generation as lacking what they in the future will have. Best of all, while the interpretation may involve greater complexity within the
basis, the net gain of putting the complexity there will alleviate the complexities whose regurgitory means are the sole measure of understanding.

It is a strange position, I'll admit; it's a sort of blue sky requirement in theory that does not exist yet. But as regards the original concern of a basis, and I do find it interesting that you wind up with a hexagonal packing from a rectilinear basis,
but the notion that a basis for physics deserves to be of a purely arithmetic form is a desirable realization. It is a realization that modern physics cannot live with because they would be halted from the start. Because modern physics does in fact lack
this then we can predictably admit that it is wrong. Why? Because it does not have the correct basis.

Here is another way to look at this: We go to the first principle of cosmology, and ask: is the universe isotropic? Is space isotropic? Clearly the answer comes back as if from god himself: YES. Then we get to a more careful rendition which inserts 'on
average' into the specification. Worst of all, when we ask whether spacetime is isotropic god himself will not even have the discussion. Please, now, let's consider what it means to declare the universe to be isotropic on average: you see the big dipper?
wipe it away with your averaging: turn it gray, please. Sagitarrius A*? gray it out. It might be a singularity, but grayed out it will never seem to be very special. There you have your isotropic unviverse, and what, from a first principle? If any could
bother to gag right here on this, well, join the club, sir, for you see that the problem of a basis for spacetime itself has been lacking. What will we suffer by admitting that the universe does in fact have structure? Will we be forced to admit a
structured spacetime basis? For the moment I do see these as two independent questions. Of course if we ponder the second, and allow for the moment a theoretical universe in which spacetime is actually structured, then one informational argument in favor
of this form is that due to the raised complexity in the basis the physics which must come atop the basis can be simplified. This presumes a conservation of information sort of argument, and yes, there are obviously some other issues, but the one which
really wants addressing, I believe, is the question of whether a structured spacetime basis can allow for relative reference frames to interact? Indeed, should it be achieved then given the complexity of the structured basis then in its interactions via
these relative reference frames it should yield quite a lot of dynamics. The hope of course here is to derive it all; electromagnetics from the structured spacetime basis, sir; the electron itself from the structured spacetime basis, please; and then on
to your atom, which is asking a lot, but theoretical physics in its purest philosophical form demands this of us. The empirical is to act as a guide of theory; not a ruler of theory, yet this is a logical fallacy that modern physics abides, and to eat
one contradiction after another is roughly what has gotten us into a rather large and complicated progression, which will turn digression if a simplified form is found. To seek this simplified form it is not actually necessary that we recover all of
these inconvenient details. Yes, down the road such will be the case as a matter of interpretation and historical analysis, but to posit the new theory; to derive the spacetime basis as a start, which lead this abstract analysis, ought to be a matter of
pure mathematics. This thought is honestly still fresh for me, and while the words appear to have conviction here, and that sense is accumulating, it is in and of itself a brash step away from that blurry view; and daunting no less to require the
derivation of the atomic structure from pure math. It is far beyond me to get that far, but I do have a candidate for the first step.


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature they

happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal mathematics

then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it would

seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.
Now, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus dubious,
whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physical character; two
characteristics, really, which have begotten the initial discrete value.

This route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of mathematics,
physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts of problems. My
only claim, really, is to have generalized sign, yet in the process of taking this realization seriously rather a lot falls out of the analysis.

That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed) value as
time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (by definition),
and three-signed numbers are two dimensional (particularly upon reduction, and their planar nature is readily explained), and that n-signed numbers are n-1 dimensional; this then lands P1 (the one-signed numbers) as zero dimensional. While they can
perform algebra, they will render geometrically to naught. This is by the polysign phenomenon sum over s of sx equals zero, where s is sign, and x is some magnitude held constant over this sum. This form sx, where s is sign and x is magnitude, is already
in use in P2, which are the real numbers, where we see the balance:
- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up here in
P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart to each
other, and label them '-', '+', '*', and all is well. You'll find that the ray trace of -1+1*1 does indeed return one to the original position.

P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but instead
through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:
( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. There are potentially two here, if we include P4. Clearly we do want to include P1P2P3 in our spacetime basis, and that P1 is unidirectional time means that we have a significant gain over
RxRxRxR, which completely lacks such character. Indeed, the treatment of the real number P2 as fundamental is now broken. What we are getting is a structured spacetime. This ought to raise your shackles, and put you searching for a hammer and a chisel,
sir.

P1 as time already supports a zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. The balance law literally reads -x=0, but you see this law is
that which renders the geometry. That we have an arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing. We can still
add: -1-3=-4; multiply: (-3)(-5)=-15; yet the geometry of these figures is naught by the laws which make this unidirectional form compatible with the higher forms.

We exist as prisoners of spacetime. As such our access to the basis is limited by the fact that we are its offspring. That we seek a basis at all implies that we seek a pure arithmetic form, yet because no such has been achieved we have wallowed about
with the best we could do. Now we have entered a new age, and yet only slightly few have adopted the new paradigm. The quantity of breaks from tradition which polysign exposes is extreme. Why did none of the greats who could cover such tremendous ground
not arrive with polysign already? As I go back through mathematics it is possible that the first adoption of the negative value was not actually taken so seriously as it could have been. In effect the act of adoption was taken as a concession; a further
divorce from physical correspondence was felt, and the need to glue together mathematics into a coherent progression, coupled with the earlier adoption of Euclidean geometry as the pure form, left the geometry of the real line as already established as
the Euclidean line intact. The notion of the ray as fundamental has somewhat been adopted as the vector atop this accumulation, whereas within polysign the ray takes fundamental status within the construction; the line being composed of two rays.

As to what behaves as a ray: light does. As to what illuminates those paper drawings and how a zero dimensional point on the paper could be treated as fundamental; well its visibility from pretty much any angle is helpful to our visualization. Strangely
enough the treatment of light as a particle and Einstein's own question of what it would be like to ride a particle of light exposes that the photon ages exactly zero seconds in its transition from emission to absorption, and that its distance traveled
is condensed to naught in its own frame of reference. That these zero dimensional features are taking freshness within the polysign interpretation or rather finding correspondence through it is suggestive of electromagnetics as features of the spacetime
basis itself. Thus the hope of the derived electron through the raised complexity of structural spacetime alleviates the complexity of the particle itself, presuming a conservation of information, which arguably is an abstract argument, but a sensible
claim, I hope you'll agree. Of course no physics has been done here. This is nearly pure mathematics. But you see this is why such great hope exists for polysign. Theory is compromised by not providing emergent spacetime already. It somewhat declares
that all shall be theoretically hamstrung by an empirical basis. The string theorists really blew things up and exposed the problem more fraudulently than any that came before. Now the quantum gravity people even seem to have let up on their insistence
that they will find emergent spacetime. Yes it is all a bit of a farce as I see it. But wee humans I do accept are authentically trying; at least some are. Certainly without the disgusting accumulation as it stands I would not have so much fodder for
conversation, and yet to confront it freely seems necessary as well. Polysign numbers are a misfit. This is why they do not get exposed. Yet they recover P2, which to academia is some fundamental form for the last four hundred years or so. Meanwhile
these same happily declare a first cosmological principal that requires wiping away the details of the the universe. To admit a structured spacetime basis; even one which may find its productivity via relative reference frames, as has been productive in
the past, is to go this large, you see?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi guys, do you have some unsolved problems/challenges that you may want to publicly propose here ?
Best regards

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:55:55 PM UTC-7, Steven Lahkmi wrote:

Hi guys, do you have some unsolved problems/challenges that you may want to publicly propose here ?
Best regards

Yes, could you please provide the exact solution for the n-body problem when n is, for example, 3?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 23:41:11 UTC+10, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?

Newton worked a lot on that. That physics phenomena is predicted by mathematical formulations is well explained in the Principia. Mathematics also indicates what could be possible.

I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically.

Modern theoretical physics is based upon the invariance of the speed of light (false), inertia (false) and quantum theory (false).
Mathematics is used or rather abused to make wrong appear right, along with faulty postulates, wrong experimental analysis, imagination galore with artwork, and schizophrenic hypothesis like that of de Broglie, continuation of wrong ideas in classical
physics such as entropy and the law of conservation of energy.

- snip -
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:22:34 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 23:41:11 UTC+10, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?

Newton worked a lot on that. That physics phenomena is predicted by mathematical formulations is well explained in the Principia. Mathematics also indicates what could be possible.

I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically.

Modern theoretical physics is based upon the invariance of the speed of light (false), inertia (false) and quantum theory (false).

Thanks Arindam, for some meaningful feedback. I'm pretty sure that I agree with your last falsification; not sure about inertia, and on the speed of light I have contributed the zero dimensional interpretation of the photon already. Yet how such an
interdimensional phenomenon exacts itself: I really don't see us falsifying the spectroscopic results; the forward design of the laser even. This region of work became a curve-fitter's paradise. The very nature of theory versus empirical was blurred from
the get-go, and even before via the arbitrary assignment of space as RxRxR, with no theoretical framework for this particular quantity of copies of a two-signed arithmetic basis.

At some level the experimental physicist will agree I believe, that when they search for something specific is when they find something specific. Yet along the way the bumps in the road and the challenges of asserting that specificity inherently interact
with the species under study. The electron is a very wonderful instance of this. Under Maxwell that was to be a pure raw charge whose motion generated the magnetic fields we witness. This put charge (a two-signed discrete quality; at least up to quarks)
as fundamental, but then the spectroscopic results started getting splits and doubles and things became confusing... until the electron was given more qualities, which in the end, or at least the current position, land the electron with an inherent
magnetic field; something which somewhat falsifies Maxwell, even while all will bow to Maxwell... up to microscopic phenomena. This becomes a formal out in the preface of some careful texts.

I do hope for a new atomic model, though I confess it is beyond my own abilities. Ideally a return to true theory; meaning mathematics with physical correspondence as a check rather than as a placeholder within the theory; will find a fresh way through
the accumulation that is modern physics. That such a math exists now: this is secured, at least in as far as an emergent spacetime claim can be laid. That this math has been overlooked by humans: this as well is secured. As to what else we are missing:
it is likely right under our noses and we can't even smell it. This is how profoundly the invalid assumption operates. Already polysign numbers expose this detail and prove it for all to see. Denial is the typical response.

Possibly there is some work to be done on an exterior model, which thence yields an interior result, which we are bathed in. We are indeed elements or at most conglomerates of spacetime. We are its prisoners. As such our access to the basis is dubious.
That we pull it from thin air is entirely necessary, especially if we start from a blank slate. The idea that we've done everything perfectly up till now and that all this accumulation including the trained acceptance of conflict within theory must be
mimicked, and that these mimics will rule the next day; well, this is the current system. At some level the tension is necessary, yet at another level, and particularly for wee participants on USENET, obviously this req does not apply.

Still though, to what extent does casting a falsification matter: well, it does, I think. Especially in these days of mainstream propaganda we witness the human race run afoul; run amuck. I only hope that it is just capitalism that is to blame. So better
still is replacement theory. This can be approached as a gedanken land, and as to how deeply to trove down for the first foundation: The deeper the better. I can't help but wonder in these crazy times that people are actually doing this in preparation
for an event that the public will not be apprised of. Why else would Elon Musk insist that the world is not overpopulated? The very stutterance of Mitch McConnell to not answer a question about the next election suggests there will be no next election.
His refusal to lie the great pause? Who am I to give away these signals; yet I suggest there are more to come. Now this is pure theory, or rather a construction from thin air with only slight supports. It is relevant that it remains that way and that it
has a life in this regard. This is known as open systems. We like open systems! We want open systems! That is ultimately why we are here on USENET. Our global identity, compromised as it is, at least is not owned by some private tech company here. That
my cuntry; the U.$.ofA.; does not care to operate this way is fully established now. The censorship is being exposed. The entire cold war was a ruse, perhaps. As to where a clear mind can be found: not here.

A regard for reality is fundamental to the physicist, but as well to the philosopher, no? To what degree do these topics deserve a complete divorce from each other? Then let's as well get over to mathematics... and here I feel my next contribution is of
such a simplistic form, yet one that has been bull-dozed by curricular academics. I have gone through much of mathematics as a result of my discovery of the generalization of sign, now known as polysign numbers. Having broken the number by its actual
syntax of two different creatures sign and magnitude as sx, where s is sign and x is magnitude, and having developed the sign portion productively, I am left wondering should I be concerned about the x portion as well. Along side of this issue the
results of polysign lay somewhat obscurely up in abstract algebra(AA); something more esoteric as a branch of 'advanced' mathematics. It is one thing when physicists eat particle/wave duality; spell out the conflict, and burp over and over about it. Yet
in AA they don't bother with this level of scrutiny, and this in mathematics. Completely unacceptable. They have covered their tracks. Indeed they are wearing long sleeves in the AA department. I need mention only one term to get this right: a1X. Closure
is gone.

Now back a few paragraphs I was discussing the disgusting nature of experimental physics with its abilities often enough to seek out a species S1, let's say, and actually get something back; even if its qualities require some modification, which are
thence a refinement of S1. At this point the highest energy experiments are requiring rather a lot of this sort of juggling. I don't mean to completely falsify it, but as well to say that you can smell a rat; it's wise perhaps to keep an open stance.
Where I mean to go is directly back to pure mathematics; to the natural value, where number and physics achieve their fullest divorce. The mathematicians; wanting to work from thin air; come up with a successor function; and feel that that is
sufficiently different from physics that the two will never be tied again, thus securing mathematics as foundational. And yet at such an early stage of human progress from the blank slate, the number took physical significance and that is about all that
it took. It was one level of abstraction away, and without its physical qualifiers was completely meaningless.

This fake tear between physics and mathematics has become something that I do care about. It is so readily exposed, and that the details of the exposure can matter as to the role of the universe in such matters: here is a morsel worthy of pursuit. That
it occurs at such a primitive level is of great interest. We can literally assemble clay marbles in a sheepskin pouch by which we account for the number of sheep in a field, and but for the clay to roll the marbles out of and the fire to cure them, not
much else is needed to observe conservation; to observe that such numbers actually physically require a container; a subsetting concept; of the universe. That these objects which can be accounted for in this method must obey the discrete qualities, or at
least that for now we will keep them this way, as the simplest means of accounting. You see that the physical and the mathematical arrive at each other with integrity. Why would such a bond be dissolved?

I have to come to this in the context of this modern day, Thu Sep 7 12:03:11 EDT 2023, and explain that these divides are false, and that it is our good luck to exist in an area of spacetime where stability is had such that the natural number can take
its place with physical correspondence. I would even go a bit further, and explain that if sheep doubled each night in the field, and that this behavior was universal amongst species, that the natural value would somehow reflect this feature. Yes, this
is going a bit too far, but now for the reversal: that the natural value caries with it a specification and a volumetric restraint: here lay details which the mathematician dissolved, whereby the mathematicians happily adds the bag in with the marbles.
Yes indeed: modern mathematics is off by one. The fundamental nature of unity is best specified by -1; not +1. Well, you say, now your are off by two, and indeed when you're off by one such things can occur, and they can occur again and again and again,
and yes, let's stop at three for no better reason than physical correspondence. Well, you might add, did you expect the marbles in the bag to magically match the number of sheep in the field? Where is the physical correspondence? Indeed, what is the
mathematician but a bean counter run astray?

I am growing quite a lot of beans this year and have no intention of counting them this way. Clearly the transcriptional method as number is a haltingly slow procedure for large values, and so the modulo qualities of the digits take life not at all in
the natural value. Strangely enough sign takes its place in the modulo form as well. Speciation of polysign systems shows that for instance a P2 value and a P3 value are incommensurate. Set theory much prefers this way of doing business. At the hardware
factory they have a chart of the series of alloys they work in crossed with the various geometries of hardware they produce. Somehow the productive nature of the series of alloys crossed with the series of alloys crossed with the series of alloys never
seemed to make sense. Could it be that such a choice within physics is a concern for the neopolitical mindset? That we are one species on one planet seems to me a reasonable assumption. That our count has exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet
seems well established. I do try to make sense out of the information that I am receiving, and signalling is present. Keep an open stance, people.

Mathematics is used or rather abused to make wrong appear right, along with faulty postulates, wrong experimental analysis, imagination galore with artwork, and schizophrenic hypothesis like that of de Broglie, continuation of wrong ideas in classical

physics such as entropy and the law of conservation of energy.

- snip -
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 02:46:20 UTC+10, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:22:34 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 23:41:11 UTC+10, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight.
To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?

Newton worked a lot on that. That physics phenomena is predicted by mathematical formulations is well explained in the Principia. Mathematics also indicates what could be possible.

I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically.

Modern theoretical physics is based upon the invariance of the speed of light (false), inertia (false) and quantum theory (false).

Thanks Arindam, for some meaningful feedback. I'm pretty sure that I agree with your last falsification; not sure about inertia, and on the speed of light I have contributed the zero dimensional interpretation of the photon already. Yet how such an

interdimensional phenomenon exacts itself: I really don't see us falsifying the spectroscopic results; the forward design of the laser even. This region of work became a curve-fitter's paradise. The very nature of theory versus empirical was blurred from
the get-go, and even before via the arbitrary assignment of space as RxRxR, with no theoretical framework for this particular quantity of copies of a two-signed arithmetic basis.

Well, there will be no doubt about inertia violation with my experiments, latest ones ongoing, with my new rail guns. With inertia gone, Newtonian laws get updated and Eisnteiniian physics totally binned, with aether coming back. With revision to
Newtonian laws, entropy goes out along with the law of conservation of energy - a canard useful for energy companies. As obvious, energy is continually created and lost in our infinite universe. Infinity and zero are key issues - totally practically.
The universe is infinite; it is composed of aether, of size zero.

From every proton or electron infinite lines of force emanate to every other electron or proton in the universe. Earh influences all others. The lines of force travel through aether, of zero size. All protons ane electrons glide through aether without
hindrance. No friction there. But the varying lines of force shake up the aether, causing waves to happen.

The above is the newest way to look at the workings of the universe. The photon is a brief disturbance of aether, which travels as a wave. A laser is a wavefront many wavelengths across, giving directionality like a very huge microwave antenna.

With understanding that the speed of light changes with the speed of emission, there is no case for e=mcc. Thus, no case for quantum theory with hv=mcc=e, which gives a photon a mass. A disturbance is just that - like any emotion, it does not have mass.

Doppler effect clearly shows that the speed of light is variant. The theories of relativity should never have taken off, but they got validity with the atom bomb and e=mcc, wrong as that is, became something more than divine. However, the atom bomb and
in fact all explosions can be explained far better with my non-destructive kinetic formula I found in 1998, that is e=0.5mVVN(N-k). That called for the reality of inertia violation with internal force, and that I have done. So, 95% of the work is
already done, the 5% relates to getting money and skills for engineering completion - work for going to the stars, I mean.

As Tesla saw, the modern physicists were very smart people who were not scientists but theologians, out to corrupt science. The task for them was to boost Jewish metaphysics to keep their monotheisms going, for the monotheists fund them. Physics is now
totally corrupted, but who cares. The effects of 19th century physics create money via engineering and trade, so things are just fine for the powers that be. No rocking of boats to be allowed, what. Whodumbos rule. Sad.

At some level the experimental physicist will agree I believe, that when they search for something specific is when they find something specific. Yet along the way the bumps in the road and the challenges of asserting that specificity inherently

interact with the species under study. The electron is a very wonderful instance of this. Under Maxwell that was to be a pure raw charge whose motion generated the magnetic fields we witness. This put charge (a two-signed discrete quality; at least up to
quarks) as fundamental, but then the spectroscopic results started getting splits and doubles and things became confusing... until the electron was given more qualities, which in the end, or at least the current position, land the electron with an
inherent magnetic field; something which somewhat falsifies Maxwell, even while all will bow to Maxwell... up to microscopic phenomena. This becomes a formal out in the preface of some careful texts.

In fact the electron with its magnetic field entirely supports Maxwell. If the electron is circulating an atom it has magnetic moment with N and S, depending upon the spin clockwise or counterclockwise. If it goes linearly it creates a magnetic field
like any current.

I do hope for a new atomic model, though I confess it is beyond my own abilities. Ideally a return to true theory; meaning mathematics with physical correspondence as a check rather than as a placeholder within the theory; will find a fresh way through

the accumulation that is modern physics. That such a math exists now: this is secured, at least in as far as an emergent spacetime claim can be laid. That this math has been overlooked by humans: this as well is secured. As to what else we are missing:
it is likely right under our noses and we can't even smell it. This is how profoundly the invalid assumption operates. Already polysign numbers expose this detail and prove it for all to see. Denial is the typical response.

Yes, deinial is the typical response as you show. I have shown the violation of inertia, the formula e=0,5mVVN(N-k) and the whole lot is in denial, and also abuse of me with no grounds at all. Anything to keep the funding from the monotheists going, for
their careers.

Possibly there is some work to be done on an exterior model, which thence yields an interior result, which we are bathed in. We are indeed elements or at most conglomerates of spacetime. We are its prisoners. As such our access to the basis is dubious.

That we pull it from thin air is entirely necessary, especially if we start from a blank slate. The idea that we've done everything perfectly up till now and that all this accumulation including the trained acceptance of conflict within theory must be
mimicked, and that these mimics will rule the next day; well, this is the current system. At some level the tension is necessary, yet at another level, and particularly for wee participants on USENET, obviously this req does not apply.

Obviously, as you say. Usenet, Youtube, Facebook replace journal publications for the amateur who is a rebel.

Still though, to what extent does casting a falsification matter: well, it does, I think. Especially in these days of mainstream propaganda we witness the human race run afoul; run amuck. I only hope that it is just capitalism that is to blame. So

better still is replacement theory. This can be approached as a gedanken land, and as to how deeply to trove down for the first foundation: The deeper the better. I can't help but wonder in these crazy times that people are actually doing this in
preparation for an event that the public will not be apprised of. Why else would Elon Musk insist that the world is not overpopulated? The very stutterance of Mitch McConnell to not answer a question about the next election suggests there will be no next
election. His refusal to lie the great pause? Who am I to give away these signals; yet I suggest there are more to come. Now this is pure theory, or rather a construction from thin air with only slight supports. It is relevant that it remains that way
and that it has a life in this regard. This is known as open systems. We like open systems! We want open systems! That is ultimately why we are here on USENET. Our global identity, compromised as it is, at least is not owned by some private tech company
here. That my cuntry; the U.$.ofA.; does not care to operate this way is fully established now. The censorship is being exposed. The entire cold war was a ruse, perhaps. As to where a clear mind can be found: not here.

Probably North Korea will be better than the totally corrupt US, run by whodumbos, for new research into physics. :-)

Unless your lying old fools are replaced with those with my sort of thinking, things will go from bad to worse.
The showman Reagan started the rot - things were not that bad till he came along with his greed is good formula, along with Randist selfishness as top virtue.

A regard for reality is fundamental to the physicist, but as well to the philosopher, no?

Oh yes.
And reality is that I have with my own hands and no help at all, using my meagre savings, made a new invention, the heavy armature low voltage rail gun, worth at least $500000000 if Jim P is to be believed about such failed spending on research in US.
Even more, reality is that I have shown it has no electrical reaction and the mechanical reaction from friction with treadmill action is lesser than the forward reaction, meaning there is a net momentum to the whole thing.
When such reality is ignored, no physicist nor philosopher is to be found - just indifferent, abusive, slimy careerists.

To what degree do these topics deserve a complete divorce from each other? Then let's as well get over to mathematics... and here I feel my next contribution is of such a simplistic form, yet one that has been bull-dozed by curricular academics. I have

gone through much of mathematics as a result of my discovery of the generalization of sign, now known as polysign numbers. Having broken the number by its actual syntax of two different creatures sign and magnitude as sx, where s is sign and x is
magnitude, and having developed the sign portion productively, I am left wondering should I be concerned about the x portion as well. Along side of this issue the results of polysign lay somewhat obscurely up in abstract algebra(AA); something more
esoteric as a branch of 'advanced' mathematics. It is one thing when physicists eat particle/wave duality; spell out the conflict, and burp over and over about it. Yet in AA they don't bother with this level of scrutiny, and this in mathematics.
Completely unacceptable. They have covered their tracks. Indeed they are wearing long sleeves in the AA department. I need mention only one term to get this right: a1X. Closure is gone.

Now back a few paragraphs I was discussing the disgusting nature of experimental physics with its abilities often enough to seek out a species S1, let's say, and actually get something back; even if its qualities require some modification, which are

thence a refinement of S1. At this point the highest energy experiments are requiring rather a lot of this sort of juggling. I don't mean to completely falsify it, but as well to say that you can smell a rat; it's wise perhaps to keep an open stance.
Where I mean to go is directly back to pure mathematics; to the natural value, where number and physics achieve their fullest divorce. The mathematicians; wanting to work from thin air; come up with a successor function; and feel that that is
sufficiently different from physics that the two will never be tied again, thus securing mathematics as foundational. And yet at such an early stage of human progress from the blank slate, the number took physical significance and that is about all that
it took. It was one level of abstraction away, and without its physical qualifiers was completely meaningless.

This fake tear between physics and mathematics has become something that I do care about. It is so readily exposed, and that the details of the exposure can matter as to the role of the universe in such matters: here is a morsel worthy of pursuit. That

it occurs at such a primitive level is of great interest. We can literally assemble clay marbles in a sheepskin pouch by which we account for the number of sheep in a field, and but for the clay to roll the marbles out of and the fire to cure them, not
much else is needed to observe conservation; to observe that such numbers actually physically require a container; a subsetting concept; of the universe. That these objects which can be accounted for in this method must obey the discrete qualities, or at
least that for now we will keep them this way, as the simplest means of accounting. You see that the physical and the mathematical arrive at each other with integrity. Why would such a bond be dissolved?

I have to come to this in the context of this modern day, Thu Sep 7 12:03:11 EDT 2023, and explain that these divides are false, and that it is our good luck to exist in an area of spacetime where stability is had such that the natural number can take

its place with physical correspondence. I would even go a bit further, and explain that if sheep doubled each night in the field, and that this behavior was universal amongst species, that the natural value would somehow reflect this feature. Yes, this
is going a bit too far, but now for the reversal: that the natural value caries with it a specification and a volumetric restraint: here lay details which the mathematician dissolved, whereby the mathematicians happily adds the bag in with the marbles.
Yes indeed: modern mathematics is off by one. The fundamental nature of unity is best specified by -1; not +1. Well, you say, now your are off by two, and indeed when you're off by one such things can occur, and they can occur again and again and again,
and yes, let's stop at three for no better reason than physical correspondence. Well, you might add, did you expect the marbles in the bag to magically match the number of sheep in the field? Where is the physical correspondence? Indeed, what is the
mathematician but a bean counter run astray?

I am growing quite a lot of beans this year and have no intention of counting them this way. Clearly the transcriptional method as number is a haltingly slow procedure for large values, and so the modulo qualities of the digits take life not at all in

the natural value. Strangely enough sign takes its place in the modulo form as well. Speciation of polysign systems shows that for instance a P2 value and a P3 value are incommensurate. Set theory much prefers this way of doing business. At the hardware
factory they have a chart of the series of alloys they work in crossed with the various geometries of hardware they produce. Somehow the productive nature of the series of alloys crossed with the series of alloys crossed with the series of alloys never
seemed to make sense. Could it be that such a choice within physics is a concern for the neopolitical mindset? That we are one species on one planet seems to me a reasonable assumption. That our count has exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet
seems well established. I do try to make sense out of the information that I am receiving, and signalling is present. Keep an open stance, people.

Mathematics is used or rather abused to make wrong appear right, along with faulty postulates, wrong experimental analysis, imagination galore with artwork, and schizophrenic hypothesis like that of de Broglie, continuation of wrong ideas in

classical physics such as entropy and the law of conservation of energy. Sooner they follow my physics aphorisms, the better.
But the very idea of letting me have any kind of institution giving me visibility is anathema to the whodumbos.
Their power is great, global, ghastly.

- snip -
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:26:38 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature

they happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal mathematics

then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it would

seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Now, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus dubious,

whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physical character; two
characteristics, really, which have begotten the initial discrete value.

This route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of mathematics,

physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts of problems. My
only claim, really, is to have generalized sign, yet in the process of taking this realization seriously rather a lot falls out of the analysis.

That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed) value

as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (by definition)
, and three-signed numbers are two dimensional (particularly upon reduction, and their planar nature is readily explained), and that n-signed numbers are n-1 dimensional; this then lands P1 (the one-signed numbers) as zero dimensional. While they can
perform algebra, they will render geometrically to naught. This is by the polysign phenomenon sum over s of sx equals zero, where s is sign, and x is some magnitude held constant over this sum. This form sx, where s is sign and x is magnitude, is already
in use in P2, which are the real numbers, where we see the balance:

- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up here

in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart to
each other, and label them '-', '+', '*', and all is well. You'll find that the ray trace of -1+1*1 does indeed return one to the original position.

P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but instead

through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:

( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. There are potentially two here, if we include P4. Clearly we do want to include P1P2P3 in our spacetime basis, and that P1 is unidirectional time means that we have a significant gain over

RxRxRxR, which completely lacks such character. Indeed, the treatment of the real number P2 as fundamental is now broken. What we are getting is a structured spacetime. This ought to raise your shackles, and put you searching for a hammer and a chisel,
sir.

P1 as time already supports a zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. The balance law literally reads -x=0, but you see this law is

that which renders the geometry. That we have an arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing. We can still
add: -1-3=-4; multiply: (-3)(-5)=-15; yet the geometry of these figures is naught by the laws which make this unidirectional form compatible with the higher forms.

We exist as prisoners of spacetime. As such our access to the basis is limited by the fact that we are its offspring. That we seek a basis at all implies that we seek a pure arithmetic form, yet because no such has been achieved we have wallowed about

with the best we could do. Now we have entered a new age, and yet only slightly few have adopted the new paradigm. The quantity of breaks from tradition which polysign exposes is extreme. Why did none of the greats who could cover such tremendous ground
not arrive with polysign already? As I go back through mathematics it is possible that the first adoption of the negative value was not actually taken so seriously as it could have been. In effect the act of adoption was taken as a concession; a further
divorce from physical correspondence was felt, and the need to glue together mathematics into a coherent progression, coupled with the earlier adoption of Euclidean geometry as the pure form, left the geometry of the real line as already established as
the Euclidean line intact. The notion of the ray as fundamental has somewhat been adopted as the vector atop this accumulation, whereas within polysign the ray takes fundamental status within the construction; the line being composed of two rays.

As to what behaves as a ray: light does. As to what illuminates those paper drawings and how a zero dimensional point on the paper could be treated as fundamental; well its visibility from pretty much any angle is helpful to our visualization.

Strangely enough the treatment of light as a particle and Einstein's own question of what it would be like to ride a particle of light exposes that the photon ages exactly zero seconds in its transition from emission to absorption, and that its distance
traveled is condensed to naught in its own frame of reference. That these zero dimensional features are taking freshness within the polysign interpretation or rather finding correspondence through it is suggestive of electromagnetics as features of the
spacetime basis itself. Thus the hope of the derived electron through the raised complexity of structural spacetime alleviates the complexity of the particle itself, presuming a conservation of information, which arguably is an abstract argument, but a
sensible claim, I hope you'll agree. Of course no physics has been done here. This is nearly pure mathematics. But you see this is why such great hope exists for polysign. Theory is compromised by not providing emergent spacetime already. It somewhat
declares that all shall be theoretically hamstrung by an empirical basis. The string theorists really blew things up and exposed the problem more fraudulently than any that came before. Now the quantum gravity people even seem to have let up on their
insistence that they will find emergent spacetime. Yes it is all a bit of a farce as I see it. But wee humans I do accept are authentically trying; at least some are. Certainly without the disgusting accumulation as it stands I would not have so much
fodder for conversation, and yet to confront it freely seems necessary as well. Polysign numbers are a misfit. This is why they do not get exposed. Yet they recover P2, which to academia is some fundamental form for the last four hundred years or so.
Meanwhile these same happily declare a first cosmological principal that requires wiping away the details of the the universe. To admit a structured spacetime basis; even one which may find its productivity via relative reference frames, as has been
productive in the past, is to go this large, you see?

Not only can the natural value take fresh meaning from physical correspondence, but it becomes clear that set theory can be born just here, too.
Reusing the sheep in the field as a primitive example, and clearly the shepherd does attempt to merely worry about his one flock, while minds on USENET will try to take this working example farther. Should it be admitted that there are more sheep
elsewhere than in the paddock? Obviously within the usage of a natural value there lays a subsetting concept, and I believe that this implies that the set is the subset, which is slightly contradictory to the normal buildup from the mathematical
perspective, where physics has been destroyed. In effect the physical reality of that natural number occupying a region of space without whose specification, such as 'the paddock', becomes meaningless except at the level of the universe. Admittedly from
the primitive conception of an early human his universe may have actually been an island; a Greek island, let's say, where his family lived a sheep culture with mutton stew always available; sheep-skin clothes so warm the shaving away of the wool was
critical to staying comfortable in the summer months, and of course the airy sweater of spun and knit wool was much preferred for heavy work to the over-heating that the full wool leather coat allowed for while remaining more stationary. Regardless of
how refined this island culture may have gotten up to, and certainly their accounting of their sheep was fundamentally well understood, the notion of 'all the sheep' only went as far as the perimeter of the island, until one day a barge carrying sheep
arrived, hoping to find a vacant island where the sheep could be grazed safely from predators. A light went off in the man's head, and he was a particularly bright shepherd, as he had pondered the universe of sheep already and realized that upon
assembling his bag of marbles representing his sheep with his neighbors bags of marbles representing their sheep; transcribing the whole mess really, that he would have the universal count of sheep. Yet now along comes this barge of foreign sheep, and
they did even look a little different; more muscly; like they'd been playing on some steep slopes; and mean looking, too. Still, they were undoubtedly sheep and he pondered just how many from far away places there could be... and suddenly he felt very
small, as the barge acted as a proof in a strange sort of way to his abstract mind which had established a view counter to what he witnessed.

Even while the number of sheep in the universe cannot be exacted, the fact that the set of sheep which the man owns is accounted for: clearly it is out of this universal set that his set is established. This option of a top down approach to set theory;
as having physical correspondence; is apparent even while the bottom up form feels imperative. What the bottom up approach lacks is this coherency between the physical world and the subject matter. It is just the same container that established the
natural value that establishes this view of the set. Without a partitioning of spacetime no such concept will be physically available. Of course that the objects under study abide the boundary of the container is helpful here. Stability or conservation
is a necessary principle. Here again, we see yet another physical correspondence fundamental that is coming at the basis of physical correspondence rather than at some higher level, as we are taught that conservation principles go. In essence that which
is accountable is conservational, and so we rely upon this. That stability comes strongest in the atomic form: there lays the object of our desires from the theoretical perspective. That we have not arrived in the atomic sheep is pretty well established
when a lamb is born. Of course this statement even is identifying with that conservation principle just established. The point is that this coherency is more available from the physical perspective and in a stronger form than it is from the purely
mathematical construction. Whether this empirical leniency is necessary from a theoretical perspective poses that a top down set theory, if properly built in correspondence with these characteristics then yields these characteristics, then physical
correspondence from the theoretical form is established. That this notion actually requires the physical universe is of interest. We've grown accustomed to using the term, and in prior times much less was known of it, and even what was known was far more
dubious, particularly on Greek islands. Even still, the open problem of the universe can hardly be problematic to our study from a clean slate, which bites off a small piece for study, and we realize what we have done is in this perspective. When we land
with a discrete count we can concede the term 'natural' to this phenomenon in relation to the mathematicians who divorced themselves from physics long ago, only to reuse its terminology in this way.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:14:55 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:26:38 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight.
To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature

they happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal

mathematics then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it

would seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Now, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus dubious,

whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physical character; two
characteristics, really, which have begotten the initial discrete value.

This route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of

mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts of
problems. My only claim, really, is to have generalized sign, yet in the process of taking this realization seriously rather a lot falls out of the analysis.

That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed) value

as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (by definition)
, and three-signed numbers are two dimensional (particularly upon reduction, and their planar nature is readily explained), and that n-signed numbers are n-1 dimensional; this then lands P1 (the one-signed numbers) as zero dimensional. While they can
perform algebra, they will render geometrically to naught. This is by the polysign phenomenon sum over s of sx equals zero, where s is sign, and x is some magnitude held constant over this sum. This form sx, where s is sign and x is magnitude, is already
in use in P2, which are the real numbers, where we see the balance:

- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up

here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart
to each other, and label them '-', '+', '*', and all is well. You'll find that the ray trace of -1+1*1 does indeed return one to the original position.

P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but instead

through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:

( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. There are potentially two here, if we include P4. Clearly we do want to include P1P2P3 in our spacetime basis, and that P1 is unidirectional time means that we have a significant gain

over RxRxRxR, which completely lacks such character. Indeed, the treatment of the real number P2 as fundamental is now broken. What we are getting is a structured spacetime. This ought to raise your shackles, and put you searching for a hammer and a
chisel, sir.

P1 as time already supports a zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. The balance law literally reads -x=0, but you see this law is

that which renders the geometry. That we have an arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing. We can still
add: -1-3=-4; multiply: (-3)(-5)=-15; yet the geometry of these figures is naught by the laws which make this unidirectional form compatible with the higher forms.

We exist as prisoners of spacetime. As such our access to the basis is limited by the fact that we are its offspring. That we seek a basis at all implies that we seek a pure arithmetic form, yet because no such has been achieved we have wallowed

about with the best we could do. Now we have entered a new age, and yet only slightly few have adopted the new paradigm. The quantity of breaks from tradition which polysign exposes is extreme. Why did none of the greats who could cover such tremendous
ground not arrive with polysign already? As I go back through mathematics it is possible that the first adoption of the negative value was not actually taken so seriously as it could have been. In effect the act of adoption was taken as a concession; a
further divorce from physical correspondence was felt, and the need to glue together mathematics into a coherent progression, coupled with the earlier adoption of Euclidean geometry as the pure form, left the geometry of the real line as already
established as the Euclidean line intact. The notion of the ray as fundamental has somewhat been adopted as the vector atop this accumulation, whereas within polysign the ray takes fundamental status within the construction; the line being composed of
two rays.

As to what behaves as a ray: light does. As to what illuminates those paper drawings and how a zero dimensional point on the paper could be treated as fundamental; well its visibility from pretty much any angle is helpful to our visualization.

Strangely enough the treatment of light as a particle and Einstein's own question of what it would be like to ride a particle of light exposes that the photon ages exactly zero seconds in its transition from emission to absorption, and that its distance
traveled is condensed to naught in its own frame of reference. That these zero dimensional features are taking freshness within the polysign interpretation or rather finding correspondence through it is suggestive of electromagnetics as features of the
spacetime basis itself. Thus the hope of the derived electron through the raised complexity of structural spacetime alleviates the complexity of the particle itself, presuming a conservation of information, which arguably is an abstract argument, but a
sensible claim, I hope you'll agree. Of course no physics has been done here. This is nearly pure mathematics. But you see this is why such great hope exists for polysign. Theory is compromised by not providing emergent spacetime already. It somewhat
declares that all shall be theoretically hamstrung by an empirical basis. The string theorists really blew things up and exposed the problem more fraudulently than any that came before. Now the quantum gravity people even seem to have let up on their
insistence that they will find emergent spacetime. Yes it is all a bit of a farce as I see it. But wee humans I do accept are authentically trying; at least some are. Certainly without the disgusting accumulation as it stands I would not have so much
fodder for conversation, and yet to confront it freely seems necessary as well. Polysign numbers are a misfit. This is why they do not get exposed. Yet they recover P2, which to academia is some fundamental form for the last four hundred years or so.
Meanwhile these same happily declare a first cosmological principal that requires wiping away the details of the the universe. To admit a structured spacetime basis; even one which may find its productivity via relative reference frames, as has been
productive in the past, is to go this large, you see?

Not only can the natural value take fresh meaning from physical correspondence, but it becomes clear that set theory can be born just here, too.
Reusing the sheep in the field as a primitive example, and clearly the shepherd does attempt to merely worry about his one flock, while minds on USENET will try to take this working example farther. Should it be admitted that there are more sheep

elsewhere than in the paddock? Obviously within the usage of a natural value there lays a subsetting concept, and I believe that this implies that the set is the subset, which is slightly contradictory to the normal buildup from the mathematical
perspective, where physics has been destroyed. In effect the physical reality of that natural number occupying a region of space without whose specification, such as 'the paddock', becomes meaningless except at the level of the universe. Admittedly from
the primitive conception of an early human his universe may have actually been an island; a Greek island, let's say, where his family lived a sheep culture with mutton stew always available; sheep-skin clothes so warm the shaving away of the wool was
critical to staying comfortable in the summer months, and of course the airy sweater of spun and knit wool was much preferred for heavy work to the over-heating that the full wool leather coat allowed for while remaining more stationary. Regardless of
how refined this island culture may have gotten up to, and certainly their accounting of their sheep was fundamentally well understood, the notion of 'all the sheep' only went as far as the perimeter of the island, until one day a barge carrying sheep
arrived, hoping to find a vacant island where the sheep could be grazed safely from predators. A light went off in the man's head, and he was a particularly bright shepherd, as he had pondered the universe of sheep already and realized that upon
assembling his bag of marbles representing his sheep with his neighbors bags of marbles representing their sheep; transcribing the whole mess really, that he would have the universal count of sheep. Yet now along comes this barge of foreign sheep, and
they did even look a little different; more muscly; like they'd been playing on some steep slopes; and mean looking, too. Still, they were undoubtedly sheep and he pondered just how many from far away places there could be... and suddenly he felt very
small, as the barge acted as a proof in a strange sort of way to his abstract mind which had established a view counter to what he witnessed.

Even while the number of sheep in the universe cannot be exacted, the fact that the set of sheep which the man owns is accounted for: clearly it is out of this universal set that his set is established. This option of a top down approach to set theory;

as having physical correspondence; is apparent even while the bottom up form feels imperative. What the bottom up approach lacks is this coherency between the physical world and the subject matter. It is just the same container that established the
natural value that establishes this view of the set. Without a partitioning of spacetime no such concept will be physically available. Of course that the objects under study abide the boundary of the container is helpful here. Stability or conservation
is a necessary principle. Here again, we see yet another physical correspondence fundamental that is coming at the basis of physical correspondence rather than at some higher level, as we are taught that conservation principles go. In essence that which
is accountable is conservational, and so we rely upon this. That stability comes strongest in the atomic form: there lays the object of our desires from the theoretical perspective. That we have not arrived in the atomic sheep is pretty well established
when a lamb is born. Of course this statement even is identifying with that conservation principle just established. The point is that this coherency is more available from the physical perspective and in a stronger form than it is from the purely
mathematical construction. Whether this empirical leniency is necessary from a theoretical perspective poses that a top down set theory, if properly built in correspondence with these characteristics then yields these characteristics, then physical
correspondence from the theoretical form is established. That this notion actually requires the physical universe is of interest. We've grown accustomed to using the term, and in prior times much less was known of it, and even what was known was far more
dubious, particularly on Greek islands. Even still, the open problem of the universe can hardly be problematic to our study from a clean slate, which bites off a small piece for study, and we realize what we have done is in this perspective. When we land
with a discrete count we can concede the term 'natural' to this phenomenon in relation to the mathematicians who divorced themselves from physics long ago, only to reuse its terminology in this way.

The tension between the physical correspondence as generating arithmetic concepts, versus pure arithmetic yielding a theoretical physical basis, has to be confronted. On the one hand I claim that pure theory requires that spacetime must be derived rather
than mimicked. On the other hand a loose claim that set theory can and ought to be born directly out of physical correspondence seems convincing; at least in my own mind in that moment. Much of the guidance that is presented is a matter of space and its
partitioning. The natural value finds its security there, as does set theory itself, given a stable environment. Perhaps even gravity ought to be entered here, for without the settling of objects to stationary coherence, then this stability is not felt.
Oddly enough this lands us on the plane as terrestrials. It is a neat primitive start to the Euclidean progression. I'm thinking from a blank slate sort of pre-linguistic culture of pre-humans, scrawling with sharpened sticks on some compatible soil
their plans for the next day and how the group will cover the ground thoroughly and meet in the next ravine by nightfall, each smaller group seeking resources which may be returned for.

That the plane is still our means of representation must mean something. That these planes of theoretical work are affected by implements from outside that plane; physical space; must be felt. The ruler which allows with its straight edge the trace of a
pencil to represent a line; these things have this physical character that is being impressed upon us as a theoretical basis. The refinement of these tools is sadly not a part of the process in today's classrooms. After all, we are doing mathematics here,
right? This breakage cannot be healthy. This training onto the two dimensional surface is all about us now. Make the pixels dance and the eye follows. The mind follows. Certainly animation of the surface is very helpful, and possibly the mind itself is
already working in iconic ways. What else can we do but harbor discrete segregated forms, and yet as corn is a relative of grass, then the morphology of the situation will blur. The richness of reality seems far beyond our abilities to reproduce from a
theoretical basis. This is somewhat suggestive as the dull RxRxRxR is driven into our skulls. As if R is all that there is to see, around every corner and through every construction, all will be R. Einstein's really, really, really, real value... or
should we blame that on Minkowski, or even Descartes for that matter? No: it was not Descarte's fault. Did you ever take two rulers, put them together and swing them to right angles and Shazam!, a plane gets borne? Then take your third and by golly when
it is just right then suddenly space itself takes life. The puzzle here lays in the concept of a representation versus a construction, and really geometry itself and its relation to spacetime. It is now possible to exceed the performance of the Cartesian
plane. It is done so simply as to ask: what if a number had three signs instead of two?
P2: - a + a = 0
P3: - a + a * a = 0
and that really is enough. All else falls out from this realization. You can meander and maraud all over man's works of the last four hundred years by this one line alone.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/9/2023 9:52 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight.
To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically.

Summer is over and you're back again.

You neither know physics, nor mathematics. Take your nonsense elsewhere.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 10:52:22 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:14:55 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 1:26:38 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight.
To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature

they happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal

mathematics then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it

would seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Now, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus

dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physical
character; two characteristics, really, which have begotten the initial discrete value.

This route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of

mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts of
problems. My only claim, really, is to have generalized sign, yet in the process of taking this realization seriously rather a lot falls out of the analysis.

That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed)

value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (by
definition), and three-signed numbers are two dimensional (particularly upon reduction, and their planar nature is readily explained), and that n-signed numbers are n-1 dimensional; this then lands P1 (the one-signed numbers) as zero dimensional. While
they can perform algebra, they will render geometrically to naught. This is by the polysign phenomenon sum over s of sx equals zero, where s is sign, and x is some magnitude held constant over this sum. This form sx, where s is sign and x is magnitude,
is already in use in P2, which are the real numbers, where we see the balance:

- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up

here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart
to each other, and label them '-', '+', '*', and all is well. You'll find that the ray trace of -1+1*1 does indeed return one to the original position.

P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but instead

through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:

( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. There are potentially two here, if we include P4. Clearly we do want to include P1P2P3 in our spacetime basis, and that P1 is unidirectional time means that we have a significant gain

over RxRxRxR, which completely lacks such character. Indeed, the treatment of the real number P2 as fundamental is now broken. What we are getting is a structured spacetime. This ought to raise your shackles, and put you searching for a hammer and a
chisel, sir.

P1 as time already supports a zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. The balance law literally reads -x=0, but you see this law

is that which renders the geometry. That we have an arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing. We can
still add: -1-3=-4; multiply: (-3)(-5)=-15; yet the geometry of these figures is naught by the laws which make this unidirectional form compatible with the higher forms.

We exist as prisoners of spacetime. As such our access to the basis is limited by the fact that we are its offspring. That we seek a basis at all implies that we seek a pure arithmetic form, yet because no such has been achieved we have wallowed

about with the best we could do. Now we have entered a new age, and yet only slightly few have adopted the new paradigm. The quantity of breaks from tradition which polysign exposes is extreme. Why did none of the greats who could cover such tremendous
ground not arrive with polysign already? As I go back through mathematics it is possible that the first adoption of the negative value was not actually taken so seriously as it could have been. In effect the act of adoption was taken as a concession; a
further divorce from physical correspondence was felt, and the need to glue together mathematics into a coherent progression, coupled with the earlier adoption of Euclidean geometry as the pure form, left the geometry of the real line as already
established as the Euclidean line intact. The notion of the ray as fundamental has somewhat been adopted as the vector atop this accumulation, whereas within polysign the ray takes fundamental status within the construction; the line being composed of
two rays.

As to what behaves as a ray: light does. As to what illuminates those paper drawings and how a zero dimensional point on the paper could be treated as fundamental; well its visibility from pretty much any angle is helpful to our visualization.

Strangely enough the treatment of light as a particle and Einstein's own question of what it would be like to ride a particle of light exposes that the photon ages exactly zero seconds in its transition from emission to absorption, and that its distance
traveled is condensed to naught in its own frame of reference. That these zero dimensional features are taking freshness within the polysign interpretation or rather finding correspondence through it is suggestive of electromagnetics as features of the
spacetime basis itself. Thus the hope of the derived electron through the raised complexity of structural spacetime alleviates the complexity of the particle itself, presuming a conservation of information, which arguably is an abstract argument, but a
sensible claim, I hope you'll agree. Of course no physics has been done here. This is nearly pure mathematics. But you see this is why such great hope exists for polysign. Theory is compromised by not providing emergent spacetime already. It somewhat
declares that all shall be theoretically hamstrung by an empirical basis. The string theorists really blew things up and exposed the problem more fraudulently than any that came before. Now the quantum gravity people even seem to have let up on their
insistence that they will find emergent spacetime. Yes it is all a bit of a farce as I see it. But wee humans I do accept are authentically trying; at least some are. Certainly without the disgusting accumulation as it stands I would not have so much
fodder for conversation, and yet to confront it freely seems necessary as well. Polysign numbers are a misfit. This is why they do not get exposed. Yet they recover P2, which to academia is some fundamental form for the last four hundred years or so.
Meanwhile these same happily declare a first cosmological principal that requires wiping away the details of the the universe. To admit a structured spacetime basis; even one which may find its productivity via relative reference frames, as has been
productive in the past, is to go this large, you see?

Not only can the natural value take fresh meaning from physical correspondence, but it becomes clear that set theory can be born just here, too.
Reusing the sheep in the field as a primitive example, and clearly the shepherd does attempt to merely worry about his one flock, while minds on USENET will try to take this working example farther. Should it be admitted that there are more sheep

elsewhere than in the paddock? Obviously within the usage of a natural value there lays a subsetting concept, and I believe that this implies that the set is the subset, which is slightly contradictory to the normal buildup from the mathematical
perspective, where physics has been destroyed. In effect the physical reality of that natural number occupying a region of space without whose specification, such as 'the paddock', becomes meaningless except at the level of the universe. Admittedly from
the primitive conception of an early human his universe may have actually been an island; a Greek island, let's say, where his family lived a sheep culture with mutton stew always available; sheep-skin clothes so warm the shaving away of the wool was
critical to staying comfortable in the summer months, and of course the airy sweater of spun and knit wool was much preferred for heavy work to the over-heating that the full wool leather coat allowed for while remaining more stationary. Regardless of
how refined this island culture may have gotten up to, and certainly their accounting of their sheep was fundamentally well understood, the notion of 'all the sheep' only went as far as the perimeter of the island, until one day a barge carrying sheep
arrived, hoping to find a vacant island where the sheep could be grazed safely from predators. A light went off in the man's head, and he was a particularly bright shepherd, as he had pondered the universe of sheep already and realized that upon
assembling his bag of marbles representing his sheep with his neighbors bags of marbles representing their sheep; transcribing the whole mess really, that he would have the universal count of sheep. Yet now along comes this barge of foreign sheep, and
they did even look a little different; more muscly; like they'd been playing on some steep slopes; and mean looking, too. Still, they were undoubtedly sheep and he pondered just how many from far away places there could be... and suddenly he felt very
small, as the barge acted as a proof in a strange sort of way to his abstract mind which had established a view counter to what he witnessed.

Even while the number of sheep in the universe cannot be exacted, the fact that the set of sheep which the man owns is accounted for: clearly it is out of this universal set that his set is established. This option of a top down approach to set

theory; as having physical correspondence; is apparent even while the bottom up form feels imperative. What the bottom up approach lacks is this coherency between the physical world and the subject matter. It is just the same container that established
the natural value that establishes this view of the set. Without a partitioning of spacetime no such concept will be physically available. Of course that the objects under study abide the boundary of the container is helpful here. Stability or
conservation is a necessary principle. Here again, we see yet another physical correspondence fundamental that is coming at the basis of physical correspondence rather than at some higher level, as we are taught that conservation principles go. In
essence that which is accountable is conservational, and so we rely upon this. That stability comes strongest in the atomic form: there lays the object of our desires from the theoretical perspective. That we have not arrived in the atomic sheep is
pretty well established when a lamb is born. Of course this statement even is identifying with that conservation principle just established. The point is that this coherency is more available from the physical perspective and in a stronger form than it
is from the purely mathematical construction. Whether this empirical leniency is necessary from a theoretical perspective poses that a top down set theory, if properly built in correspondence with these characteristics then yields these characteristics,
then physical correspondence from the theoretical form is established. That this notion actually requires the physical universe is of interest. We've grown accustomed to using the term, and in prior times much less was known of it, and even what was
known was far more dubious, particularly on Greek islands. Even still, the open problem of the universe can hardly be problematic to our study from a clean slate, which bites off a small piece for study, and we realize what we have done is in this
perspective. When we land with a discrete count we can concede the term 'natural' to this phenomenon in relation to the mathematicians who divorced themselves from physics long ago, only to reuse its terminology in this way.

The tension between the physical correspondence as generating arithmetic concepts, versus pure arithmetic yielding a theoretical physical basis, has to be confronted. On the one hand I claim that pure theory requires that spacetime must be derived

rather than mimicked. On the other hand a loose claim that set theory can and ought to be born directly out of physical correspondence seems convincing; at least in my own mind in that moment. Much of the guidance that is presented is a matter of space
and its partitioning. The natural value finds its security there, as does set theory itself, given a stable environment. Perhaps even gravity ought to be entered here, for without the settling of objects to stationary coherence, then this stability is
not felt. Oddly enough this lands us on the plane as terrestrials. It is a neat primitive start to the Euclidean progression. I'm thinking from a blank slate sort of pre-linguistic culture of pre-humans, scrawling with sharpened sticks on some compatible
soil their plans for the next day and how the group will cover the ground thoroughly and meet in the next ravine by nightfall, each smaller group seeking resources which may be returned for.

That the plane is still our means of representation must mean something. That these planes of theoretical work are affected by implements from outside that plane; physical space; must be felt. The ruler which allows with its straight edge the trace of

a pencil to represent a line; these things have this physical character that is being impressed upon us as a theoretical basis. The refinement of these tools is sadly not a part of the process in today's classrooms. After all, we are doing mathematics
here, right? This breakage cannot be healthy. This training onto the two dimensional surface is all about us now. Make the pixels dance and the eye follows. The mind follows. Certainly animation of the surface is very helpful, and possibly the mind
itself is already working in iconic ways. What else can we do but harbor discrete segregated forms, and yet as corn is a relative of grass, then the morphology of the situation will blur. The richness of reality seems far beyond our abilities to
reproduce from a theoretical basis. This is somewhat suggestive as the dull RxRxRxR is driven into our skulls. As if R is all that there is to see, around every corner and through every construction, all will be R. Einstein's really, really, really, real
value... or should we blame that on Minkowski, or even Descartes for that matter? No: it was not Descarte's fault. Did you ever take two rulers, put them together and swing them to right angles and Shazam!, a plane gets borne? Then take your third and by
golly when it is just right then suddenly space itself takes life. The puzzle here lays in the concept of a representation versus a construction, and really geometry itself and its relation to spacetime. It is now possible to exceed the performance of
the Cartesian plane. It is done so simply as to ask: what if a number had three signs instead of two?

P2: - a + a = 0
P3: - a + a * a = 0
and that really is enough. All else falls out from this realization. You can meander and maraud all over man's works of the last four hundred years by this one line alone.

It seems I've been taking pot-shots at the Cartesian product RxRxRxR, but haven't done a very good job of confronting it directly here on this thread yet. Certainly, it does work; so long as you hold to your perpendiculars, yet these perpendiculars are
not actually expressed within the Cartesian product. Awareness of the concept of independence versus the concept of orthogonality exposes the problem. A Cartesian product takes far greater sense as we cross truly independent concepts, and marry them
together through this product. Thus for instance a hardware factory making screws, bolts, nuts, washers, lock washers, etc. (set H) may be engaged in various alloys of metals (set M), and it would be entirely sensible that in the accounting of such the
set HxM would naturally ensue. However, this sense of reasonableness is completely lost on the set MxM, isn't it? This would appear to be an asenine construction. Even the insistence that these two sets might be sensitive to the angle between them: will
we be needing to discuss this angular issue on HxM? How then can it be that in geometry such inversions can take coherency? I suggest it is possible that they do not.

Indeed, via the discovery of polysign numbers, whose geometries are expressly required by their law of balance [sum over s of sx = 0, holding x constant where s is sign and x is magnitude], and so no Cartesian product is required in order to beget these
coordinate systems. They occur naturally as the rays emanating from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices. This simple requirement of their balance actually does tie them together such that they are not at all independent, and yet there they
are in perfect symmetry as well. That the real value as P2 does indeed obey this very geometry is telling, and that the plane needs just three rays for its representation rather than four: this is the P3 plane, and with its modulo-3 product it begets the
complex numbers from the very rules that just built the real numbers as P2. On they go, up to P4, P5, and so on. Back down they go one more as well; to P1; a peculiar yet important member of the family, for the geometry of the sole ray must obey the law
of balance too, and so it renders to naught; that this unidirectional system takes a zero dimensional geometric interpretation, even while capable of providing one-signed arithmetic; this is a new interpretation brought on by polysign. That time does
indeed obey this principle even fits with our empirical checking, for noone has ever claimed to move an object in time, yet it is by this sort of freedom that we derive the three dimensions of space.

Now, as we gaze upon the subdimensional strategy from polysign's vantage we see a family of number systems; each requiring its own geometry:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and yes that bar is relevant and does exist naturally through the arithmetic as a breakpoint in behavior. In P4+ strange things happen like two non-zero values in product yielding zero (-1+1)(+1#1)=(1,1,1,1)=0. Generally distance is not conserved through
products and this is a particularly special case of that behavior. Anyway, getting back to the Cartesian awareness, the family of polysign systems need not even require the usage of the Cartesian product because they are each of their own type already.
They do not interoperate. In fact going back to the hardware example why shouldn't we simply admit that HM is a clean set no different than I might utter the phrase 'brass bolt", for it is the independence of these two things which fills out the
sensibility. Such a product is indeed very natural and it seems necessary in the specification of a sensible instance. This idea that reality must be broken down via sensible sets is entirely appropriate to physics, and yet in its status quo basis we see
suspicious mathematics. Admittedly in the past such mathematics was all that we had to go on. Yet no emergent spacetime was ever found that way, whereas under this guise of sensible set theory polysign with their breakpoint are already yielding it from
pure mathematics; a proper theoretical basis has been found. Actually two candidates have been found:
P1 P2 P3
exhibits unidirection zero dimensional time and three dimensions, but now are we forced to engage a Cartesian product sense amongst them to regain the spatial representation? I leave this open for now, and admit that the choice to engage:
P1 P2 P3 | P4
would yield a cleaner physical space as P4, with its subdimensional counterparts of great interest to supporting electromagnetic behavior. Indeed this is a six dimensional construct, and such have been used to benefit in electromagnetic theory, though my
own understanding of them is limited.
The fact that unidirectional time and its zero dimensional behavior are inherent to these constructions is beneficial. That their geometries are strictly defined without the confusion of the Cartesian product would seem to make that which is dubious
unnecessary.

I find it puzzling that I could land in such simple analysis challenging such precepts authentically, and yet here it is packaged fairly straight-forwardly. As a software engineer I learned several times over that the most challenging bugs lay in the
invalid assumption; for it is these which go invisible to the mind. These sorts of bugs go designed into a system, and I suggest that we are all suffering this paradigm. Of course the extensions of this theory span outwards into philosphy as well, and
that human consciousness could take such a hit is, well; entirely feasible.



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 2:06:13 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

I find it puzzling that I could land in such simple analysis challenging such precepts authentically, and yet here it is packaged fairly straight-forwardly. As a software engineer I learned several times over that the most challenging bugs lay in the

invalid assumption; for it is these which go invisible to the mind. These sorts of bugs go designed into a system, and I suggest that we are all suffering this paradigm. Of course the extensions of this theory span outwards into philosophy as well, and
that human consciousness could take such a hit is, well; entirely feasible.

The geometry of the real line is not at all being challenged here, but what gives that real line its geometry? Isn't it true that the balance of the signs is what causes the geometry? Isn't the line composed of two rays; one positive, and one negative?
These balance so that -x+x=0; whether x is a magnitude or a real value can be even more simply stated as -1+1=0, if you prefer. The signs take one stroke to draw(-) and two strokes to draw(+), and products have sign mechanics which expose modulo two
behavior.

The Euclidean plane existed prior to the Cartesian version, but does it enable the Cartesian version? Staying with traditional (x,y) coordinates, we have the point as our simplest element. My attack on Cartesian coordinates here will seem futile on the
surface. I don't mean to say that they do not work. But do they construct the plane? Or are they merely a representation? Does orthogonality imply independence? We can perfectly well recover a planar representation using sixty degrees instead of ninety.
We can call these Woodsir coordinates, as they have a readily procured reference tool made of wood by augering two holes through a slab, thencely splitting the slab into three such that each has the two holes, thence pegging those together the simplest
reference triangle is developed with decent precision, and rapidly, too.

While a culture could have formed around the Woodsir product that has as much conviction as the Cartesian version; if not more; there is another way which deserves consideration, and in hindsight will expose the weakness of the Cartesian product. The
real number develops the geometry of the line as two rays perfectly balanced. Why humans have overlooked the option to engage a three-ray system is unknown, but we do it now, and what we witness, though notationally there are a few challenges, in a very
simple way we can reuse the first two signs and introduce a third '*' which takes three strokes to draw and simply restate the balance:
P3 : - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 ; - x + x * x = 0 .
That these three rays do indeed match the Woodsir triangle is true, yet as a coordinate system they emanate from an origin outward to the vertices of the three verticed simplex. So they have 120 degrees between them. We see that P3 values, like -2+3*4
can be reduced by this balance such that the reduced form generally needs only two values: +1*2 is equivalent and reduced. We do this same in P2 (the reals) though we rarely worry about the general form (a1,a2), whereas engaging P3 we will be engaging
the general form (a1,a2,a3). We have a product available and its behavior in P3 is modulo three. It's simply a matter of FOILing through:
( a1, a2, a3 )( b1, b2, b3 ) = ( a1b3 @ a2b2 @ a3b1, a1b1 @ a2b3 @ a3b2, a1b2 @ a2b1 @ a3b3 )
where '@' implies a zero sign sum; a new identity sign which does not move, as the '+' sign of old has been relegated sensibly to sign two, and so we cannot use it consistently as the sum anymore. If the mnemonic was not so strong another notational
convenience might be chosen, but where the number of strokes to draw the sign allows correspondence then we have a sign series @,-,+,*,# which allows us to work up through P5 values in ordinary algebraic notation. Though the star '*' in my font here
shows five rays, drawn on paper it is done in three strokes normally. The '@' is chosen for its reminiscence to zero.

Whereas the general arithmetic product in P3 has nine terms (above) in practical usage of reduced values it will have just four. Likewise P2 has in general four terms, though we ordinarily work in the reduced form and see just one term. It should be
clear that P4 products are as well defined by these rules and per term the sign mechanics are simply a matter of adding the signs modulo the signature of the system, which for P4 is modulo 4.

That these rules of polysign apply in Pn is beneficial, and that we have algebraically behaved systems in Pn can be resolved. Best of all, P3 are the complex numbers, though they are in a new suit of clothes. Yes, people: C and R can be this closely
related, but you will need to adopt polysign to get here. And of course working through these details, which upon adaptation are ridiculously simple, you can have spacetime correspondence within an arithmetic basis as well. This of course is the title of
this thread, and as we cover and recover the ground my hope is that some will transcend onto polysign numbers. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done here, and the promise will be apparent to any who gain the perception.

Now, back to the plane to freshen the awareness of P3 versus RxR, which to polysign would be P2xP2, actually. That 's four rays to develop the plane, whereas polysign needs just three. In fact four rays are sufficient to develop the 3D version of space
P4, with its four rays emanating from the center of a tetrahedron outward to its vertices. Thow away the frame, please. The terminology 'dimension' does in fact work out and I am careful not to offend it, but we should admit as well that its definition
is somewhat tied to the real line. This is really the baffling problem of polysign numbers: upon adoption the real value is no longer fundamental. P3 are as fundamental as P2 within polysign. Furthermore, rather than claiming independence of values we
require that (x,x,x)=0, which is a statement of interdependence of these values, and actually does allow for the reduction of the general three-form down to just two components. Yet this action is exactly the same action as rendering the value. The
implication of a tie between geometry and sign is extremely direct here, whereas in hindsight, the Cartesian form is weak.

The need of interpretation here is paramount. In fact it is an open problem. We are down near very fundamental mathematics, and rather a lot can be treated as open from this new ground. The hope for a fresh new version of physics awaits the next
generation. It is as exciting for mathematicians as it is for physicists, and even the philosophers can get in on it too. It is quite a statement on humanity that the polysign interpretation has taken so long to rise.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:56:56 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 2:06:13 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

I find it puzzling that I could land in such simple analysis challenging such precepts authentically, and yet here it is packaged fairly straight-forwardly. As a software engineer I learned several times over that the most challenging bugs lay in the

invalid assumption; for it is these which go invisible to the mind. These sorts of bugs go designed into a system, and I suggest that we are all suffering this paradigm. Of course the extensions of this theory span outwards into philosophy as well, and
that human consciousness could take such a hit is, well; entirely feasible.

The geometry of the real line is not at all being challenged here, but what gives that real line its geometry? Isn't it true that the balance of the signs is what causes the geometry? Isn't the line composed of two rays; one positive, and one negative?

These balance so that -x+x=0; whether x is a magnitude or a real value can be even more simply stated as -1+1=0, if you prefer. The signs take one stroke to draw(-) and two strokes to draw(+), and products have sign mechanics which expose modulo two
behavior.

The Euclidean plane existed prior to the Cartesian version, but does it enable the Cartesian version? Staying with traditional (x,y) coordinates, we have the point as our simplest element. My attack on Cartesian coordinates here will seem futile on the

surface. I don't mean to say that they do not work. But do they construct the plane? Or are they merely a representation? Does orthogonality imply independence? We can perfectly well recover a planar representation using sixty degrees instead of ninety.
We can call these Woodsir coordinates, as they have a readily procured reference tool made of wood by augering two holes through a slab, thencely splitting the slab into three such that each has the two holes, thence pegging those together the simplest
reference triangle is developed with decent precision, and rapidly, too.

While a culture could have formed around the Woodsir product that has as much conviction as the Cartesian version; if not more; there is another way which deserves consideration, and in hindsight will expose the weakness of the Cartesian product. The

real number develops the geometry of the line as two rays perfectly balanced. Why humans have overlooked the option to engage a three-ray system is unknown, but we do it now, and what we witness, though notationally there are a few challenges, in a very
simple way we can reuse the first two signs and introduce a third '*' which takes three strokes to draw and simply restate the balance:

P3 : - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 ; - x + x * x = 0 .
That these three rays do indeed match the Woodsir triangle is true, yet as a coordinate system they emanate from an origin outward to the vertices of the three verticed simplex. So they have 120 degrees between them. We see that P3 values, like -2+3*4

can be reduced by this balance such that the reduced form generally needs only two values: +1*2 is equivalent and reduced. We do this same in P2 (the reals) though we rarely worry about the general form (a1,a2), whereas engaging P3 we will be engaging
the general form (a1,a2,a3). We have a product available and its behavior in P3 is modulo three. It's simply a matter of FOILing through:

( a1, a2, a3 )( b1, b2, b3 ) = ( a1b3 @ a2b2 @ a3b1, a1b1 @ a2b3 @ a3b2, a1b2 @ a2b1 @ a3b3 )
where '@' implies a zero sign sum; a new identity sign which does not move, as the '+' sign of old has been relegated sensibly to sign two, and so we cannot use it consistently as the sum anymore. If the mnemonic was not so strong another notational

convenience might be chosen, but where the number of strokes to draw the sign allows correspondence then we have a sign series @,-,+,*,# which allows us to work up through P5 values in ordinary algebraic notation. Though the star '*' in my font here
shows five rays, drawn on paper it is done in three strokes normally. The '@' is chosen for its reminiscence to zero.

Whereas the general arithmetic product in P3 has nine terms (above) in practical usage of reduced values it will have just four. Likewise P2 has in general four terms, though we ordinarily work in the reduced form and see just one term. It should be

clear that P4 products are as well defined by these rules and per term the sign mechanics are simply a matter of adding the signs modulo the signature of the system, which for P4 is modulo 4.

That these rules of polysign apply in Pn is beneficial, and that we have algebraically behaved systems in Pn can be resolved. Best of all, P3 are the complex numbers, though they are in a new suit of clothes. Yes, people: C and R can be this closely

related, but you will need to adopt polysign to get here. And of course working through these details, which upon adaptation are ridiculously simple, you can have spacetime correspondence within an arithmetic basis as well. This of course is the title of
this thread, and as we cover and recover the ground my hope is that some will transcend onto polysign numbers. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done here, and the promise will be apparent to any who gain the perception.

Now, back to the plane to freshen the awareness of P3 versus RxR, which to polysign would be P2xP2, actually. That 's four rays to develop the plane, whereas polysign needs just three. In fact four rays are sufficient to develop the 3D version of space

P4, with its four rays emanating from the center of a tetrahedron outward to its vertices. Thow away the frame, please. The terminology 'dimension' does in fact work out and I am careful not to offend it, but we should admit as well that its definition
is somewhat tied to the real line. This is really the baffling problem of polysign numbers: upon adoption the real value is no longer fundamental. P3 are as fundamental as P2 within polysign. Furthermore, rather than claiming independence of values we
require that (x,x,x)=0, which is a statement of interdependence of these values, and actually does allow for the reduction of the general three-form down to just two components. Yet this action is exactly the same action as rendering the value. The
implication of a tie between geometry and sign is extremely direct here, whereas in hindsight, the Cartesian form is weak.

The need of interpretation here is paramount. In fact it is an open problem. We are down near very fundamental mathematics, and rather a lot can be treated as open from this new ground. The hope for a fresh new version of physics awaits the next

generation. It is as exciting for mathematicians as it is for physicists, and even the philosophers can get in on it too. It is quite a statement on humanity that the polysign interpretation has taken so long to rise.

As to when mathematics will arise which takes physical correspondence: will this require a more confrontational approach? For instance, if mathematics has operators which work upon values, would you recommend using those operators as values? Here we have
a very simple offense performed by mathematicians at such an early stage, and significant to the conversation here, as sign is used as both. Such conflicted usage is entrained in us from an early age. Then we are introduced to signed values, such as +1.
23, or -0.01. Yet weren't those signs being used as operators? Should polysign be claiming the invention of an endless series of new operators? I don't believe it is wise. Yet at this time I do abide by the convention which allows the usage of sign as
operator. And yet, as we work in this seemingly compromised state, what breaks? Why doesn't the conflict become consequential? If there is an answer it will be subtle. It would be a shame to have overlooked an operator, say, which exists in a primitive
state that we've simply swept over without examination; somewhat as the step function breeds a form of analysis from such a simplistic thing; as the integral of calculus is merely summation; there is cause to ask the many eyes, and the fresher the better
in some ways, to reexamine the situation, for one small change in the basis could have dramatic consequences.

From the calculus perspective, more work needs to be done in polysign. this can be said of many areas, though. For instance should all of complex analysis be transferred into P3? Well, we'd like a polysign version of things, let's say, and for instance
in P4 tetrahedra do not pack like the cubes of old, which readily enabled three dimensional integrals. Attempting a straightforward swept form like that in (a1,a2,a3,a4) we're going to have excess coverage, and we haven't even gotten to the signon yet:
consider a shape in Pn which takes a unit step in every direction in every combinational pattern. In P3, this will net you a hexagon, having traveled a path (-1,+1,*1), (-1,*1,+1), etc. so that all six of the equilateral triangles from from an origin.
In P4 this will yield a rhombic dodecahedron. These are shapes which pack space, and a computer proof has been tried in low n, which isn't much of a proof, but at some level the proof is clear because of the simplicity of the construction. Staying with
unit steps we have engaged a polysign lattice, and its legs graphically are unidirectional. these shapes which pack the spaces Pn actually have interior detail, which is completely unique to the traditional rectilinear analysis. Interestingly, as the
ones which pack are horse moves (from chess) away from the initial signon. It seems claiming order out of P4 is going to be tricky, eh? Well, isn't it, though? Whatever order was engaged in by an (x,y,z) real valued system; even a Euclidean point series;
is not so readily reordered by any is it? Already back in P3 we witness the complexity of a function mapping f(z) back onto z is a four dimensional graphic; or if you prefer in C: these are the same system. Our early happiness with functional analysis of
the singular dimension onto a singular dimension as y=f(x) brings on rich curves of polynomials and puzzles over roots which got named 'false' and 'imaginary' by the very man whose name is attributed to these renderings, and who never actually even used
them, well: clearly for one who challenges the Cartesian product such is fodder. Then too, there is the attempt to bring operators into a functional description f:SxS->S, and this includes addition. Indeed, even the natural number itself succumbs to
functional analysis, with Peano's successor function dominant in today's most fundamental value. If you thought that your function might contain addition or numbers inside of it: I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken, and that it is functions all the
way down, and a very long way it is when addition is a function. Worse yet: they've turned the Cartesian product up a notch to further muddy the waters. Addition has become a two dimensional problem. How about adding three elements? Won't we want SxSxS
for that one? OK, now let's stop at three; just because...

If modern mathematics is a complete fail as to physical correspondence, could this have consequences on physics built atop this basis? Here again, we arrive at the title of the thread. We need a basis that yields dynamics of the sort we witness in
reality. As conflict enters into the basis the hopes of a pure theoretical basis for physics dim. That modulo principles act within our number in several ways already; ways which go under-appreciated; that these same modulo principles can yield greater
dynamics; even emergent spacetime: this is the next step.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vvqq2f_Ch6IozwNimJjcS4kw3tnVmtPd/view?usp=drive_link

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/17/2023 9:13 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:

As to when mathematics will arise which takes physical correspondence:

Name the mental institution you are at so we can let them know they may
need to increase your dosages. It is safer for you.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature they

happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal mathematics

then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it would

seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

What would seem to be a Quixotic fail from the get-go to some will eventually gain credibility... if truth can be maintained.
The matter at hand can be taken as the Cartesian product itself. I can explain how I've come to challenge it. I can explain how it is abused to contradiction within mathematics. I can expose the Euclidean black and white dogma of a world whose
description is based upon RxRxR.
In it's most sensible usage, the Cartesian product essentially evaporates as an unnecessary formalism, for the two sets under consideration will naturally be independent of each other; rather than identically defined.

I feel my duty within this investigation is to cover the ground again and again, and attempt variations along the way. As to how convincingly this can be done: I have my doubts in that I understand that habituation is not so easily challenged. In this
regard we have to admit the retardation of the human race, and I willingly include myself within that spectrum. So, here goes a fairly retarded version mixing the various usages of the Cartesian product:

Remaining two-dimensional, using the familiar RxR where 'R' implies the real numbers and 'x' implies the Cartesian product, we see that the sum will fit this model, yielding a value in R as its result. This is the familiar usage known by (x,y)
coordinates which establish the plane. Meanwhile a deep dive into addition as ring behaved exposes that under addition RxR maps to R via the sum operator. As to which R you would care to map it back onto: I would suggest that they all are actually the
same R. By what right two copies of the same set were somehow granted uniqueness is a dubious condition, yet by order, as is used in (x,y) coordinates the respect was gained. Yet what then of its breakage? Certainly making sense of the plane through
these Cartesian coordinates we will be needing to add them, but it will be by:
( x1, y1 ) + ( x2, y2 ) = ( x1 + x2, y1 + y2 )
and I suppose it is for me to explain that this involves (RxR)x(RxR), as the careful mathematician will note. Now, as to which it will be alright to swap partners with versus not at all, clearly the (x,y) is the never swap version, whereas the others are
the ever-swap version. This idea that order matters: that the index of RxR as two identical sets now uniquely defined by their order has to be maintained. But if they are identical by what means are we distinguishing them? Isn't it alright to actually
swap them since they are the same thing? Even the insistence that these lines must be placed perpendicular to each other, while the inner sums had no such needs: can you see the silliness of this language? Did the sum become a four dimensional entity in
that moment of integration? Or, back on the retarded front, should we happily collapse the whole thing back down to R and sum the beast completely?

Farcical it is to propose it, but let's step back a minute and consider that the next in the chain, RxRxR, is taken rather seriously, and that all objects of reality at some level exist as a grand sum in this space. Certainly this is the physical
situation. We've been fixated upon a point position in all of that language, and rather a lot of point positions will need to be declared by the time we've accurately represented physical space. To claim that these even resolve to a singular figure is
not at all what this additive form is about. Yet, as the physicist does his computations, such as integrals, in their ideal form they will consider every body in space over their operation, though admittedly we generally work terribly simplified versions
of this situation. In effect, as you work a two-body problem out on a piece of paper, or perhaps some more complicated spring linkage with a damper, the simplified box in which you've worked the problem is a space which has subtracted away all else from
the study. In a way, we are suffering a habituated paradigm which alleviates the overwhelming nature of reality, and call it physics. Every problem starts from a blank page for those who have been indoctrinated; and in this regard we are operating on a
Euclidean assumption that we were trained into during childhood.

Oddly enough, this absurd claim can be substantiated by studying the first cosmological principle, which states that space is isotropic. It is so readily absorbed when we start on a blank sheet of paper; to admit that there is no structure present. Yet,
upon studying the night sky, shall we admit that the empty space on the sheet of paper is not at all what physical space actually is? When we speak of physical space did we mean to void every object in it? Well, that is the space portion, isn't it? The
rest is matter, and matter isn't space. It turns out that careful renditions of the cosmological principle do express a need to average out the objects in space. They can arrive at a figure; no doubt one which will be needing revision. As if graying out
the big dipper was not enough, how about the black hole singularity at the center of the galaxy? The very galaxy itself? This is how they arrive in isotropic space as their first principle. Now, as to who has a retardation factor that they are dealing in:
I suggest that my earlier quip, and I will own my part in it, does hold. The momentum that academia has now formed has no ability to step aside from its own quagmire.

If my analysis holds up, then really, perhaps I should relax more on the lies that humanity is struggling with in terms of current events. Sadly though, as to who might choose to go out with a bang rather than a whimper: it is too easy to see that humans
have put themselves far too high on the range of consciousness. Those who live by a nationalistic creed that they cannot fail via their own superiority are not so difficult to find in any country. We are barely exiting the time of exclusive belief
systems now, as we witness the threat of another Abrahamic uprising. All of them are splinters of the same exclusive belief system; a sure fail on the philosophical stage. I guess rather than land in tolerance on the hopes that things will be alright, I
will continue to raise the alarm, and posit a ground which supports an open protocol. Openness is the only way forward.

As a bunker mentality accrues, with a tau reaching how long? And who has a ticket and when will they be notified? Do you take turns down their? Are your colleagues disappearing for weeks at a time? Getting tired of it? Do they have all the kinks worked
out so that you won't go crazy down there when the day comes? Are you even sure your ticket is valid? These days just doing your job never felt so demoralizing. Of course making gravy at the chuck wagon, as they say, but for what? Do your time. Yeah. Do
your crime upon humanity. Hold onto your exclusive belief system. It won't fail you. The signals that we receive as the military industrial complex devours U$, grinding and churning; is this what technology is meant to do?
Just as it spirals out of control, then spirals back in upon itself; I don't feel good.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/22/2023 11:49 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:

I don't feel good.

You shouldn't. You sound awful.

I recommend you visit www.chaturbate.com. What you need can be found
there, not here.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

For Tim, the dosage augmentation must not incremented once, not twice, but thrice, cuz things in THREEs are better ;)
I have a hunch that a triality voyage is nearby.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:56:06 PM UTC-4, Esteban Ramos Quillay wrote:

For Tim, the dosage augmentation must not incremented once, not twice, but thrice, cuz things in THREEs are better ;)
I have a hunch that a triality voyage is nearby.

Sure thing. When you see unital as zero dimensional; then you realize that the dual's inverse will always be exactly untrue, what else is there but to branch up a little bit. Really, and who is it that wants their inverse so readily nearby? Duelling with
the binary onslaught is old hat now. Still, breaking fully free is not forthcoming. After all, the full progression is ultimately telling.

I think some of the attack on the status quo will hold up, but as to the replacement theory: maybe it is somebody else's cup of tea?
At some level, I've stepped to asking what right do we even have to give the purity of the plane any order? Especially if that order is arbitrary? A newb could rightly ask what my zero dimensional ray is even doing in P3 as a substructure; and so the
interpretation begins all over again.

Within the guise of recovering something like linear algebra; something like arbitrary coordinate systems; perhaps it is best just to make it happen, but something doesn't feel right. It would be like missing the opportunity to rectify particle/wave
duality. And what, you think triality is going to answer? Hah! That would be great.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/26/2023 1:38 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:56:06 PM UTC-4, Esteban Ramos Quillay wrote:

For Tim, the dosage augmentation must not incremented once, not twice, but thrice, cuz things in THREEs are better ;)
I have a hunch that a triality voyage is nearby.

Sure thing. When you see unital as zero dimensional; then you realize that the dual's inverse will always be exactly untrue, what else is there but to branch up a little bit. Really, and who is it that wants their inverse so readily nearby? Duelling

with the binary onslaught is old hat now. Still, breaking fully free is not forthcoming. After all, the full progression is ultimately telling.

I think some of the attack on the status quo will hold up, but as to the replacement theory: maybe it is somebody else's cup of tea?
At some level, I've stepped to asking what right do we even have to give the purity of the plane any order? Especially if that order is arbitrary? A newb could rightly ask what my zero dimensional ray is even doing in P3 as a substructure; and so the

interpretation begins all over again.

Within the guise of recovering something like linear algebra; something like arbitrary coordinate systems; perhaps it is best just to make it happen, but something doesn't feel right. It would be like missing the opportunity to rectify particle/wave

duality. And what, you think triality is going to answer? Hah! That would be great.




You belong to nature now. You're getting one with it, not three. :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

https://archive.org/details/polysigned_t12_and_three_flies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbT3fKt80k8&ab_channel=NetflixPhilippines

;)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:25:41 PM UTC-4, Johnny B. Goode wrote:

https://archive.org/details/polysigned_t12_and_three_flies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbT3fKt80k8&ab_channel=NetflixPhilippines

;)

I've only made it to page seven and am completely torn.
Clearly somebody has been enjoying themselves.
It is quite the romp you are on there.

I do wish you would not confuse P12 with T12, which to me is the progressive form, meaning that you've inlcuded P1,P2,P3,...,P10,P11,P12. That would be T12. It's even more than you've bargained for.

Then too, as you got to the defining P12 for the poor onlooker who potentially has no appreciation for your cheeky atmospherics, and who knows what meaningful reasoning is buried in those pages you wrote, and it would not surprise me if there is a gem in
there somewhere, and it is very mathy to be cryptic and to test who may follow you down the rabbit hole of your own making, anyways, as you defined the sum pretty well for P12, rather than for T12, then the product with its 144 components seems to be a
bit beyond texting doesn't it? It leads me to double check whether it is enough simply to explain the sign mechanics, which are sort of their own beast which allow this product almost in the same way as playing the coordinates in their 'rotated' forms
yield irregular simplices. As well, the fact that this product does remain algebraic can be observed as much as it can be proven.

It might well be said that in our blue sky approach to these matters, getting atomic will not be enough. Until we can get out the moles, the voles, chipmunks and squirrels, and of course the entire family of mice is full of surprises; could it be that
one day these objects could be a pure math?
As we ponder it the idea that the exercise will land in configuration parameters is a fine solution. The fact that modern physics in some ways ends its day troubling over such is not really so bad. Of course the idea that those figures will stand freely
is not convincing at all, but the idea that they could occur within the complexities of the polysign scaffolding, or as outgrowths from such; here there is more than a shred of hope. In the segmented approach as well we see the need within polysign to
put hairs on, and the rodents are quite pleased. That we and they share a common ancestor might even then make polysign a resource for humans as well.

Getting on about the perfection of mathematics, or mathematicians for that mather, it seems to me that the emergent rodent will not be requiring such perfection. In fact as it gets dinged up and banged around along the way somehow it will make it through.
It may come out with some deformities, but the basic rodent will be there. It makes me wonder about those long tails. Engaging the computer brain and confusing our interface mice for those ideal forms they are named after we can thus claim the continuum
on which we work. It seems to matter less and less how many gigabytes the thing requires. The more the merrier these days. We've got to blow some RAM on something or else its all just sitting there in a grand stack to drewel over. So your computer mouse
happens to fit the description, or several descriptions really, that will break down to a fully spec'd parts count, and if you got it wrong in the factory that mouse isn't going to be working, nor the next thousand. No, a verification will be taking
place, and the number of dings and bangs that these first will survive is limited. Well, we are the same way. So which is it? Life is robust and powerful... or is life fragile and fleeting?

Honestly I am thinking of schnitzel when you are on about Schinzel, and I swear I've never heard of him or her before. I even had to look up what a schnitzel is just to make sure I was getting things straight, which provably I am not. For me they are
equally foreign. If there is a connection between the two I'll be sure to think it up. Good homework. You know, there is another type of work going on in our minds which the school child is not being apprised of. The fact is that our minds are working on
things unbeknownst to us behind the scenes. It is merely our ability to let these things out from their obscure places which might be called a creative leap. Of course whether the content is good or bad remains to be judged, and fed back upon, and
possibly even discussed. Without the prior these after effects are nonexistent.

Engaging the tatrix, and your not so humble T12, the beans on my keyboard have poked a bit of fun at me as I put one upon two, and realize that the next row down does not have three, but four. I suppose the 'B' for bean as much as for binary will give
these the Bn, which are really quite a twist over Tn, both of which will still be using Pn as their source. So we get:
B1 : P1
B2 : P1 P2
B3 : P1 P2 P4
B4 : P1 P2 P4 P8
Lo and behold the breakpoint remains! And this time we almost didn't do any math.

By the way, I've grown fond of the Woodsir product, which is the sixty degree form, which is a sort of peasant form. I'm afraid as to who is constructing spaces with these things versus just filling out (preexisting?) space with them is a conundrum. To
return to straight polysign, and if you like P12, then so be it, and you know I've had a thing for P6 already, so I don't see it as too far out; just a bit farther out; well quite a bit farther, really.
The idea that we might just flatten the mess out; tear it all down; dismantle to remantle; now that is a method. And of course that will bring us back to sx as a fundamental form, and it is good to see it in your piece. Down there the product states
itself so simply, and yet to engage 144 terms, and then to want to confuse this thing with linear algebra... Did I get hung up on the real number again? It's sort of like telling P2 to take a hike, and then you bump into him down the road and try to be
pals again. The Beaners are telling P3 the same! It is more like a hidden gem there isn't it? As triangles go these are two fairly well developed forms:

T:
(a11)
(a21,a22)
(a31,a32a33)
(...)
B:
(a11)
(a21, a22)
(a41, a42, a43, a44)
(...)

Sorry that spacing probably is not working out. Google is not giving fixed width fonts for us these days.
Another impediment to gag usenet.
The beans stack one upon two, and arguable do make their own triangular form. Well, at least it could be funcused as such. I'm not saying that I really like it, but it is an option. Ground to cover. And what a heck; you make P16 in five, and look at what
has been buried along the way. Ahh, the void space? Geeze, what an interpretation. Sorry, I guess it's too much of a mess. Well, no, I'm in competition with you now here. I'd be willing, having vented the Beaner, to get on with whatever it is you are
working on. You are setting a good example by using the archive.org. Hey, does that mean you can sign for me there? As I recall it does require some sort of support like that. We really should have the basics up there, and you've gone off on so many
confusing tangents. Somebody might one day appreciate a simple version without all the cleverness. There is something in the presentation that miffs people. I don't think it is actually the cheekiness either. They just cannot believe that sign can be
generalized. Everything sort of goes 'poof' at that point, which is their minds working correctly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature they

happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal mathematics

then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it would

seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Physics is mathematics. Certainly, that's true of relativity. Physics has no explanation for the existence of a cosmic speed limit. Physics has no explanation for why relativistic momentum diverges from the Newtonian formula. Physics expects us to
believe that solid objects shrink for the benefit of a moving observer, even when the object is motionless. Then, they have the gall to argue that there are no contradictions in relativity by changing the rules of logic. All of these are logically
explained by mathematics.

In general terms, here's the problem with physics. Newton started the ball rolling with his invention of physics. In his physics, the universe was rectilinear and real. And at the velocities which he had data for, this was good enough. Even NASA used
Newtonian physics to get to the Moon, because it was good enough. The Lorentz factor, which determines the degree of time dilation and length contraction, for all speeds up to escape velocity, differs from unity by less than 1 part per billion. In the
distance to the Moon, this is less than about 1 foot, less than the wobble of the planet. But at high speeds, Newtonian physics breaks down. Einstein tried to patch this with a universe that was hyperbolic and real. He made an educated guess about the
invariance of lightspeed, and asserted the contradictions associated with time dilation and length contraction, as they were necessary to support his flawed logic. The problem is that the universe is both hyperbolic and hypercomplex. Relativity does not
incorporate the hypercomplex feature. And physics will never find these features by their obsession with experiments.

Hypercomplex measurements are not possible, because they are perpendicular to all real dimensions, and cannot contribute to their magnitudes. Hypercomplex rotations are even perpendicular to complex rotations. This is best illustrated on the surface of a
sphere, where an ordinary complex rotation is a longitude shift, and a hypercomplex rotation is a latitude shift. Before relativity was a gleam in Einstein's eye, before Newton invented physics and calculus, even before Galileo proposed his relativity,
the basis of relativity was used to construct the Mercator Projection. That basis is the gudermannian function. Applying hyperbolic trigonometry to this function establishes the existence of a cosmic speed limit. It is the basis of a new postulate that
incorporates the hypercomplex nature of the universe. It is simply this: the laws of the universe do not allow any observer to measure any more than what is real to the observer. This supersedes Einstein's 2nd Postulate, and accounts for other features
like time dilation and length contraction as geometrical projections.

It is well-known that the Lorentz transformation is a pure, hyperbolic rotation. What is not so well-known is that every hyperbolic rotation is associated with a hypercomplex phase shift as well. This phase shift is the gudermannian of the hyperbolic
rotation angle, which we call rapidity. And this phase angle determines what is real to all observers, the real, cosine projection of the gudermannian. Since the gudermannian varies with relative velocity, reality is different for every observer, and the
contradictions of relativity vanish. Physics uses the gudermannian without naming it. When they assert that relative velocity can be expressed as c sin(θ), that defines the gudermannian angle, θ. Physics defines the Lorentz factor empirically, based on
countless observations. But it is still empirical. The gudermannian defines it analytically. Given an arbitrary hyperbolic angle, η, and its gudermannian, θ, dη/d

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/8/2023 7:48 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:

Engaging the tatrix, and your not so humble T12

If you're so keen to do anything, finish your high school degree first, monkey-brain.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/8/2023 9:42 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:

Physics is mathematics.

Fuck off you inbred mating result of two sibling monkeys. A physics
forum is not a place for a high school drop out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 10:42:04 AM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature

they happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal mathematics

then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it would

seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Physics is mathematics. Certainly, that's true of relativity. Physics has no explanation for the existence of a cosmic speed limit. Physics has no explanation for why relativistic momentum diverges from the Newtonian formula. Physics expects us to

believe that solid objects shrink for the benefit of a moving observer, even when the object is motionless. Then, they have the gall to argue that there are no contradictions in relativity by changing the rules of logic. All of these are logically
explained by mathematics.

In general terms, here's the problem with physics. Newton started the ball rolling with his invention of physics. In his physics, the universe was rectilinear and real. And at the velocities which he had data for, this was good enough. Even NASA used

Newtonian physics to get to the Moon, because it was good enough. The Lorentz factor, which determines the degree of time dilation and length contraction, for all speeds up to escape velocity, differs from unity by less than 1 part per billion. In the
distance to the Moon, this is less than about 1 foot, less than the wobble of the planet. But at high speeds, Newtonian physics breaks down. Einstein tried to patch this with a universe that was hyperbolic and real. He made an educated guess about the
invariance of lightspeed, and asserted the contradictions associated with time dilation and length contraction, as they were necessary to support his flawed logic. The problem is that the universe is both hyperbolic and hypercomplex. Relativity does not
incorporate the hypercomplex feature. And physics will never find these features by their obsession with experiments.

Hypercomplex measurements are not possible, because they are perpendicular to all real dimensions, and cannot contribute to their magnitudes. Hypercomplex rotations are even perpendicular to complex rotations. This is best illustrated on the surface of

a sphere, where an ordinary complex rotation is a longitude shift, and a hypercomplex rotation is a latitude shift. Before relativity was a gleam in Einstein's eye, before Newton invented physics and calculus, even before Galileo proposed his relativity,
the basis of relativity was used to construct the Mercator Projection. That basis is the gudermannian function. Applying hyperbolic trigonometry to this function establishes the existence of a cosmic speed limit. It is the basis of a new postulate that
incorporates the hypercomplex nature of the universe. It is simply this: the laws of the universe do not allow any observer to measure any more than what is real to the observer. This supersedes Einstein's 2nd Postulate, and accounts for other features
like time dilation and length contraction as geometrical projections.

It is well-known that the Lorentz transformation is a pure, hyperbolic rotation. What is not so well-known is that every hyperbolic rotation is associated with a hypercomplex phase shift as well. This phase shift is the gudermannian of the hyperbolic

rotation angle, which we call rapidity. And this phase angle determines what is real to all observers, the real, cosine projection of the gudermannian. Since the gudermannian varies with relative velocity, reality is different for every observer, and the
contradictions of relativity vanish. Physics uses the gudermannian without naming it. When they assert that relative velocity can be expressed as c sin(θ), that defines the gudermannian angle, θ. Physics defines the Lorentz factor empirically, based on
countless observations. But it is still empirical. The gudermannian defines it analytically. Given an arbitrary hyperbolic angle, η, and its gudermannian, θ, dη/d

I confess early that I have not read your entire post. Skipping to the end I see a foreign gudermannian and that in lower case, which causes me to complain about the Grassmanian, but if you could convince me otherwise I think I could be pleased. Wedge
products? I gave them a wedgie a while ago. And yet I have my own, and it sits freely; quite free in fact, relative to polysign for certain. I simply call them sectors. They are ray based and you get a sliver and that sliver folds, so that you could take
any representation and work it down to a sliver; squeeze it into a sliver; these ops are truly regular and trivial. In a sense to work the sliver you would be declaring the universe to be a finite thing. In effect the sliver allows the differential to
take effect as you squeeze it, which is a capitalistic operation.

Of course interpretation matters. Details matter. Simplicity obviously is sought, and yet is simplicity the crux of these systems that you study? They ought then to be built for the kindergartener to understand. So maybe it is so with polysign numbers.
Maybe a more local solution exists. Interpretations vary, and yet, what if: we were all exposed to the same acceleration field. Suppose it is operating now at 10 Hertz; 10 MHz; whatever. Would we know it? It seems to me that the answer is a clean no.
Call this a snow globe universe. Aren't we prisoners of spacetime? I believe that we are fortunate just to have some solids in our surroundings to work from.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 12:55:56 PM UTC-4, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 10/8/2023 7:48 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:

Engaging the tatrix, and your not so humble T12

If you're so keen to do anything, finish your high school degree first, monkey-brain.

What a shame to see so little empathy from another; what; usenet user?
You call this using usenet? No doubt you've got a little note book, with every idea that you gleaned from another. Hoarding them.
Why not share them here? Because you don't have any original ideas?
I thought I saw some from you the other day.
It was a good read I thought, but maybe I did not read carefully enough.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 10:42:04 AM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight. To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature

they happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal mathematics

then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it would

seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Physics is mathematics. Certainly, that's true of relativity. Physics has no explanation for the existence of a cosmic speed limit. Physics has no explanation for why relativistic momentum diverges from the Newtonian formula. Physics expects us to

believe that solid objects shrink for the benefit of a moving observer, even when the object is motionless. Then, they have the gall to argue that there are no contradictions in relativity by changing the rules of logic. All of these are logically
explained by mathematics.

In general terms, here's the problem with physics. Newton started the ball rolling with his invention of physics. In his physics, the universe was rectilinear and real. And at the velocities which he had data for, this was good enough. Even NASA used

Newtonian physics to get to the Moon, because it was good enough. The Lorentz factor, which determines the degree of time dilation and length contraction, for all speeds up to escape velocity, differs from unity by less than 1 part per billion. In the
distance to the Moon, this is less than about 1 foot, less than the wobble of the planet. But at high speeds, Newtonian physics breaks down. Einstein tried to patch this with a universe that was hyperbolic and real. He made an educated guess about the
invariance of lightspeed, and asserted the contradictions associated with time dilation and length contraction, as they were necessary to support his flawed logic. The problem is that the universe is both hyperbolic and hypercomplex. Relativity does not
incorporate the hypercomplex feature. And physics will never find these features by their obsession with experiments.

Hypercomplex measurements are not possible, because they are perpendicular to all real dimensions, and cannot contribute to their magnitudes. Hypercomplex rotations are even perpendicular to complex rotations. This is best illustrated on the surface of

a sphere, where an ordinary complex rotation is a longitude shift, and a hypercomplex rotation is a latitude shift. Before relativity was a gleam in Einstein's eye, before Newton invented physics and calculus, even before Galileo proposed his relativity,
the basis of relativity was used to construct the Mercator Projection. That basis is the gudermannian function. Applying hyperbolic trigonometry to this function establishes the existence of a cosmic speed limit. It is the basis of a new postulate that
incorporates the hypercomplex nature of the universe. It is simply this: the laws of the universe do not allow any observer to measure any more than what is real to the observer. This supersedes Einstein's 2nd Postulate, and accounts for other features
like time dilation and length contraction as geometrical projections.

It is well-known that the Lorentz transformation is a pure, hyperbolic rotation. What is not so well-known is that every hyperbolic rotation is associated with a hypercomplex phase shift as well. This phase shift is the gudermannian of the hyperbolic

rotation angle, which we call rapidity. And this phase angle determines what is real to all observers, the real, cosine projection of the gudermannian. Since the gudermannian varies with relative velocity, reality is different for every observer, and the
contradictions of relativity vanish. Physics uses the gudermannian without naming it. When they assert that relative velocity can be expressed as c sin(θ), that defines the gudermannian angle, θ. Physics defines the Lorentz factor empirically, based on
countless observations. But it is still empirical. The gudermannian defines it analytically. Given an arbitrary hyperbolic angle, η, and its gudermannian, θ, dη/d

Sorry. This post accidentally got cut off before it was finished. To continue:

dη/dθ = γ, the Lorentz factor. This is an analytical definition. The solution to the diffeq can be expressed in numerous ways. Here is a list:
cosh(η) = sec(θ) = γ, the Lorentz factor
coth(η) = csc(θ)
csch(η) = cot(θ)
sech(η) = cos(θ) = 1/γ = α, the projection cosine that determines what portion is real
tanh(η) = sin(θ) = v/c
sinh(η) = tan(θ) = u/c = p/mc, celerity/c and relativistic momentum/mc

Differentiate any one of these forms with respect to either angle, and the result is the above diffeq. These solutions are pure math, yet they predict nearly all of special relativity. The math does not claim to be physics, but an impartial comparison of
the mathematical relationships shows that they are in complete agreement with all the experimental evidence. Closer analysis of the diffeq shows that it predicts a cosmic speed limit and the geometric reason why momentum does not follow Newton's law (as
well as why relativistic mass does not exist). The projection cosine also explains time dilation and length contraction, as well as a universal definition of simultaneity. They are, in fact, not necessary to prove the invariance of c, but as all the
above functions are members of a 6-group, they are all intimately related, and any one can be derived from any of the others. The myriad of applications of hyperbolic trigonometry to physics would take a book to list. That kind of space is not available
here. Wait for the book.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 12:53:00 PM UTC-4, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 10/8/2023 9:42 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:

Physics is mathematics.

Fuck off you inbred mating result of two sibling monkeys. A physics
forum is not a place for a high school drop out.

FUCK YOU, TOO! Another nonsense post from someone unqualified to post on a serious subject. It is not a surprise that Newton developed physics and calculus together. Physics is math. Prove otherwise, or shut up. Not that it matters to an idiot like you,
but I graduated college Summa Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Science degree. You?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 2:59:37 PM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 10:42:04 AM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight.
To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature

they happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal

mathematics then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it

would seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Physics is mathematics. Certainly, that's true of relativity. Physics has no explanation for the existence of a cosmic speed limit. Physics has no explanation for why relativistic momentum diverges from the Newtonian formula. Physics expects us to

believe that solid objects shrink for the benefit of a moving observer, even when the object is motionless. Then, they have the gall to argue that there are no contradictions in relativity by changing the rules of logic. All of these are logically
explained by mathematics.

In general terms, here's the problem with physics. Newton started the ball rolling with his invention of physics. In his physics, the universe was rectilinear and real. And at the velocities which he had data for, this was good enough. Even NASA used

Newtonian physics to get to the Moon, because it was good enough. The Lorentz factor, which determines the degree of time dilation and length contraction, for all speeds up to escape velocity, differs from unity by less than 1 part per billion. In the
distance to the Moon, this is less than about 1 foot, less than the wobble of the planet. But at high speeds, Newtonian physics breaks down. Einstein tried to patch this with a universe that was hyperbolic and real. He made an educated guess about the
invariance of lightspeed, and asserted the contradictions associated with time dilation and length contraction, as they were necessary to support his flawed logic. The problem is that the universe is both hyperbolic and hypercomplex. Relativity does not
incorporate the hypercomplex feature. And physics will never find these features by their obsession with experiments.

Hypercomplex measurements are not possible, because they are perpendicular to all real dimensions, and cannot contribute to their magnitudes. Hypercomplex rotations are even perpendicular to complex rotations. This is best illustrated on the surface

of a sphere, where an ordinary complex rotation is a longitude shift, and a hypercomplex rotation is a latitude shift. Before relativity was a gleam in Einstein's eye, before Newton invented physics and calculus, even before Galileo proposed his
relativity, the basis of relativity was used to construct the Mercator Projection. That basis is the gudermannian function. Applying hyperbolic trigonometry to this function establishes the existence of a cosmic speed limit. It is the basis of a new
postulate that incorporates the hypercomplex nature of the universe. It is simply this: the laws of the universe do not allow any observer to measure any more than what is real to the observer. This supersedes Einstein's 2nd Postulate, and accounts for
other features like time dilation and length contraction as geometrical projections.

It is well-known that the Lorentz transformation is a pure, hyperbolic rotation. What is not so well-known is that every hyperbolic rotation is associated with a hypercomplex phase shift as well. This phase shift is the gudermannian of the hyperbolic

rotation angle, which we call rapidity. And this phase angle determines what is real to all observers, the real, cosine projection of the gudermannian. Since the gudermannian varies with relative velocity, reality is different for every observer, and the
contradictions of relativity vanish. Physics uses the gudermannian without naming it. When they assert that relative velocity can be expressed as c sin(θ), that defines the gudermannian angle, θ. Physics defines the Lorentz factor empirically, based on
countless observations. But it is still empirical. The gudermannian defines it analytically. Given an arbitrary hyperbolic angle, η, and its gudermannian, θ, dη/d

Sorry. This post accidentally got cut off before it was finished. To continue:

dη/dθ = γ, the Lorentz factor. This is an analytical definition. The solution to the diffeq can be expressed in numerous ways. Here is a list:
cosh(η) = sec(θ) = γ, the Lorentz factor
coth(η) = csc(θ)
csch(η) = cot(θ)
sech(η) = cos(θ) = 1/γ = α, the projection cosine that determines what portion is real
tanh(η) = sin(θ) = v/c
sinh(η) = tan(θ) = u/c = p/mc, celerity/c and relativistic momentum/mc

Differentiate any one of these forms with respect to either angle, and the result is the above diffeq. These solutions are pure math, yet they predict nearly all of special relativity. The math does not claim to be physics, but an impartial comparison

of the mathematical relationships shows that they are in complete agreement with all the experimental evidence. Closer analysis of the diffeq shows that it predicts a cosmic speed limit and the geometric reason why momentum does not follow Newton's law (
as well as why relativistic mass does not exist). The projection cosine also explains time dilation and length contraction, as well as a universal definition of simultaneity. They are, in fact, not necessary to prove the invariance of c, but as all the
above functions are members of a 6-group, they are all intimately related, and any one can be derived from any of the others. The myriad of applications of hyperbolic trigonometry to physics would take a book to list. That kind of space is not available
here. Wait for the book.

This is your first bout with physics, isn't it? Thus far you've remained purely mathematical as I recall.
At some level the naming criteria for the trig functions is suspect. Let's say at least that it is not compact.
I have to admit as well that the hyperbolic system still has a foreign feel for me, and it may always be so.
I have done some sailing as well, and owned a plastic sextant, and learned some of the twenty brightest objects in the Northern sky, and am pretty good at math, and still the damn thing doesn't quite click. To confess that I am 3D challenged;
mechanically challenged; I have to own this even as I can lay claim to the discovery of general dimensional algebra in its balanced form.

I really am blown away by all this content. It seems very fresh. You've been busy. But allow me to be accusatory at the same time, which I know you pretty well expect... does the obnoxious nomenclature of the trigonometry system somewhat commence from
the commitment to the right angle as some sort of guidance, whereby these uniquely named individuals crop up whose identities are one and the same and merely shifted by that magical phase angle you so humbly land in toward the end of your vent? Of course
those phase angles are right angles, and ought we then to come up with some more of them since we were working in quarters the whole time why aren't there four instead of two? That the inverse happens to be two stages around here... and that the minus
sign suffices for this need; in the Cartesian plane, anyways. Good gravy, if you can work a P4 generic solution you'll have your hyperbolic trig, and eat it too?

Generally speaking, the spherical surface is a theoretical assumption. Working at sea level all the time, and yet upon introducing elevation once, which is our mechanical limit, what happens if we introduce it again? I have little doubt that your own
version will be more nuanced, but the idea that we are going general dimensional seems to be held back. Back that way lays Olariu's cosexp(), and I wouldn't doubt if it is down there in the bibliography. Then too, what hope is there of begetting the
general dimensional from a series of one dimensional spaces? Arguably you could put the same to polysign and claim that they are built from zero dimensional spaces, but this interpretation can be falsified. P1 are but an instance, and the raw magnitude
devoid of sign does track like an angle possibly. Honestly it is of cosmological relevance. The pursuit of infinity on a 128 bit machine will not need the carry if we get it our way. We'll simply scrape off the top 64 bits and throw them away, ready for
another product operation. This may be the op that we are after. Of course if you'd like you can have them back, but that is for you to carry. The idea that there must be room for products; in order that we ensure closure; an ambiguity arises that is
underappreciated by the math cretins of old. I guess it's a sidetrack, but there it is. It's sort of like when we throw away the imaginary part of our value in engineering; concerned only by the magnitude, by which the phase incidentally automatically
follows, supposedly, in our control systems. It is a unitized system; a normalized system. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-3db-frequency-shows-45degree-phase-shift.164970/
All the same inversions, trigonometry, and so forth, and then you'll find the physicists doing it yet another way in terms of absorption and reflectance, which is interesting and effective appartently, and this craziness is upon a single dimensional
signal... let alone a three dimensional substrate, or four, or so. Having gotten your y parameters straight, let's try another way. Along the way B and H disappeared. V and I will have to do, and the sort of z they make that once seemed simple gains new
levels of difficulty under the Laplace transform, where infinities rear their head, and that damn exponential, too.

Regarding your article "polysigned_t12_and_three_flies.pdf" I had written a bit last night, but why call it t12 instead of P12? T12 to me is the tatrix, which is
T12 = P1P2P3P4...P11P12

Well, here it is. Sorry to be so long winded.
Gotta say, I'm really enjoying the section "Goldeyson's Predicaments". It's fun reading. Thanks, Tom.
Am I to understand that you are taking hyperspheres quite seriously here?
Can we imbue that spherical surface with a varying depth component?
Of course we can. That the result is a contortion of the original spherical assumption is acceptable. Were we to assign an ideal sphere to the Earth for instance all sorts of measures would incur and accrue having to do with the variances from that ideal
form.

Alright, I've found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudermannian_function, so I guess it's no joke.

It would be fascinating if trigonometry took on new light from such. I did have some simple circle tracing research: Back in P3 graphing a circle essentially involves a series of increment operations like: *1, -0.001, +0.0002, *0.00014, -0.0.001, etc.,
where these differential values are tracing out a unit radius circle whose center is at '0', starting at *1, and progressing toward -1 from that position. In effect, however you care to code these things, and one of my favorite ways is as z^n from say z=*
1-0.00001 , and if you want to unitize the results that is fine, but these will be pretty clean. Anyway, each sign component can act as a nondecreasing function, and they will be the same function shifted by 120 degrees, or using ordinary revolutionary
language one third (of the revolution). I still wonder if there is a way to do it in P4 as there is in P3, but they are like tractor beams tuned to the nature of P4, P5, and so forth. They go planar, the z^n do. Mu really does have the special way around.

Such clever fun you are having. Great. So happy to know somebody else is working on it. You surely do know the long way around, and so many stops along the way. I am amazed and impressed, and just the sound of Goldeyson's Predicaments makes me want to
read on. I still don't get it, though. This is all really your work. I guess I do see the Golden name working though for its suggestive value. Bravo, sir. Pat me on the back again, please. Honestly people, Tom here has five times the smarts that I do. I
just got lucky on my one smart lot. Covering the ground I can speak highly of. Following the ground that Tom covers is quite another thing.

Oh good; I did not post yet. Off on one of your tangents I find:
"They introduced the concept of Discretely Straight Walkability"
- https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=ac961197fd6fde8c186987b8f6082047ea4b6dd3

A unit lattice of signons may not have linear addressing, but they do suggest a sort of putPixel(), or even putGroup(), but in the context of the signon. The simplex traverse, perhaps followed by a signon? In other words I believe there is a fine and a
coarse, but that was already available from these unit mappings. Ultimately anyways, for now, the final address will in fact be an (x,y) coordinate structure to this display technology, unless you happen to have a vector driven engine... which might
still have some artifact of this same. The raw form versus the final rendered form: are they the same thing? What is a basis? Did it construct the space or was it merely an adequate representation? Even an inadequate representation may have passed muster
for prepolysign humans. After all, the lead they drank out of is the lead we breathed as children of the leaded gasoline generation. Bicyclists beware: as you are huffing and puffing up that hill, and a big diesel truck downshifts next to you, are you
really going to hold your breath?
Been there, done it many times. Foul. This day even more foul high tech smells along the roadway... is inhaling synthetic oil lubing our lungs forever?
Got any teflon in there?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 2:59:37 PM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 10:42:04 AM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight.
To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature

they happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal

mathematics then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it

would seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Physics is mathematics. Certainly, that's true of relativity. Physics has no explanation for the existence of a cosmic speed limit. Physics has no explanation for why relativistic momentum diverges from the Newtonian formula. Physics expects us to

believe that solid objects shrink for the benefit of a moving observer, even when the object is motionless. Then, they have the gall to argue that there are no contradictions in relativity by changing the rules of logic. All of these are logically
explained by mathematics.

In general terms, here's the problem with physics. Newton started the ball rolling with his invention of physics. In his physics, the universe was rectilinear and real. And at the velocities which he had data for, this was good enough. Even NASA used

Newtonian physics to get to the Moon, because it was good enough. The Lorentz factor, which determines the degree of time dilation and length contraction, for all speeds up to escape velocity, differs from unity by less than 1 part per billion. In the
distance to the Moon, this is less than about 1 foot, less than the wobble of the planet. But at high speeds, Newtonian physics breaks down. Einstein tried to patch this with a universe that was hyperbolic and real. He made an educated guess about the
invariance of lightspeed, and asserted the contradictions associated with time dilation and length contraction, as they were necessary to support his flawed logic. The problem is that the universe is both hyperbolic and hypercomplex. Relativity does not
incorporate the hypercomplex feature. And physics will never find these features by their obsession with experiments.

Hypercomplex measurements are not possible, because they are perpendicular to all real dimensions, and cannot contribute to their magnitudes. Hypercomplex rotations are even perpendicular to complex rotations. This is best illustrated on the surface

of a sphere, where an ordinary complex rotation is a longitude shift, and a hypercomplex rotation is a latitude shift. Before relativity was a gleam in Einstein's eye, before Newton invented physics and calculus, even before Galileo proposed his
relativity, the basis of relativity was used to construct the Mercator Projection. That basis is the gudermannian function. Applying hyperbolic trigonometry to this function establishes the existence of a cosmic speed limit. It is the basis of a new
postulate that incorporates the hypercomplex nature of the universe. It is simply this: the laws of the universe do not allow any observer to measure any more than what is real to the observer. This supersedes Einstein's 2nd Postulate, and accounts for
other features like time dilation and length contraction as geometrical projections.

It is well-known that the Lorentz transformation is a pure, hyperbolic rotation. What is not so well-known is that every hyperbolic rotation is associated with a hypercomplex phase shift as well. This phase shift is the gudermannian of the hyperbolic

rotation angle, which we call rapidity. And this phase angle determines what is real to all observers, the real, cosine projection of the gudermannian. Since the gudermannian varies with relative velocity, reality is different for every observer, and the
contradictions of relativity vanish. Physics uses the gudermannian without naming it. When they assert that relative velocity can be expressed as c sin(θ), that defines the gudermannian angle, θ. Physics defines the Lorentz factor empirically, based on
countless observations. But it is still empirical. The gudermannian defines it analytically. Given an arbitrary hyperbolic angle, η, and its gudermannian, θ, dη/d

Sorry. This post accidentally got cut off before it was finished. To continue:

dη/dθ = γ, the Lorentz factor. This is an analytical definition. The solution to the diffeq can be expressed in numerous ways. Here is a list:
cosh(η) = sec(θ) = γ, the Lorentz factor
coth(η) = csc(θ)
csch(η) = cot(θ)
sech(η) = cos(θ) = 1/γ = α, the projection cosine that determines what portion is real
tanh(η) = sin(θ) = v/c
sinh(η) = tan(θ) = u/c = p/mc, celerity/c and relativistic momentum/mc

Differentiate any one of these forms with respect to either angle, and the result is the above diffeq. These solutions are pure math, yet they predict nearly all of special relativity. The math does not claim to be physics, but an impartial comparison

of the mathematical relationships shows that they are in complete agreement with all the experimental evidence. Closer analysis of the diffeq shows that it predicts a cosmic speed limit and the geometric reason why momentum does not follow Newton's law (
as well as why relativistic mass does not exist). The projection cosine also explains time dilation and length contraction, as well as a universal definition of simultaneity. They are, in fact, not necessary to prove the invariance of c, but as all the
above functions are members of a 6-group, they are all intimately related, and any one can be derived from any of the others. The myriad of applications of hyperbolic trigonometry to physics would take a book to list. That kind of space is not available
here. Wait for the book.

It's pretty new to me, and I am trying to process. Just now I've come across: Good background on your work here: https://anilzen.github.io/post/hyperbolic-relativity
"The principle of relativity corresponds to the hypothesis that the kinematic space is a space of constant negative curvature, the space of Lobachevsky and Bolyai. The value of the radius of curvature is the speed of light." - Borel (1913)


To say that gravity naturally forms spheres: this is empirically true. Yet also I am witnessing that the sin of signal analysis is the sin of your geometry, and this idea that wave theory would tie so directly to geometry is striking to me in the moment.
Still, I fail to see the truth. Three ties that really go ignored in the standard regurgitation.Flat space gives us pi. I wonder if pi could change at large scale? It does have three in it...

A quick hypnotic puzzle has crept into my head this moment: A signal emanates from a source; very much a carrier wave, with only a subtle envelope; preserving its own band as much as leaving room for others. As signals must so it must vary. It is in its
variance that it conveys information. In that light conveys information so must it emanate from its source; complete its emanation from its source; develop over its path to its destination; perhaps a mold is encountered along the way; a faint hue of
Hydrogen, perhaps, was gone through, and now supposedly we are down to the background hue, and like a blue sky day we now can say that there is something there. And really, can I please get a response on the criticisms of the first principal of cosmology?
My fingers are aching...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:47:02 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 2:59:37 PM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 10:42:04 AM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:

This gambit occurs in hindsight, yet here I can present it with foresight.
To what degree does a basis for physics imply pure mathematics?
I believe that this statement is acceptable and that it exposes a flaw in modern theoretical physics, for their basis is done empirically. They readily bow to the mathematics of the real number, and since space exhibits a three dimensional nature

they happily go to RxRxR as a sensible workspace of, let's say, a first physical form. Yet the three was plucked from thin air and is a matter of empirical correspondence, and so we see a bleak theoretical claim here for all theory that works from such a
basis, which is modern physics. While most of us will admit that the experimental physicists have the upper hand, few will admit that it started way back here.

To explain that all of theory is empirical is to explain that we lack a clean theory. To expose the problem as a lacking in mathematics is where I care to shine the light. This notion of 'basis' and what exactly it means... does the ideal

mathematics then provide emergent spacetime without any physics? In effect these are the details which make a basis, or at least which give a basis correspondence.

To claim that you will require three copies of your basis for your basis, and never have any theory for the three, or four for that matter... and to claim that identical copies are effective: now here I am attacking the Cartesian product and it

would seem impossible to do so, yet from this theoretical stance it can be done. Still, this is not the start of the journey that I would take you on on this thread. It is more a stop along the way.

Physics is mathematics. Certainly, that's true of relativity. Physics has no explanation for the existence of a cosmic speed limit. Physics has no explanation for why relativistic momentum diverges from the Newtonian formula. Physics expects us to

believe that solid objects shrink for the benefit of a moving observer, even when the object is motionless. Then, they have the gall to argue that there are no contradictions in relativity by changing the rules of logic. All of these are logically
explained by mathematics.

In general terms, here's the problem with physics. Newton started the ball rolling with his invention of physics. In his physics, the universe was rectilinear and real. And at the velocities which he had data for, this was good enough. Even NASA

used Newtonian physics to get to the Moon, because it was good enough. The Lorentz factor, which determines the degree of time dilation and length contraction, for all speeds up to escape velocity, differs from unity by less than 1 part per billion. In
the distance to the Moon, this is less than about 1 foot, less than the wobble of the planet. But at high speeds, Newtonian physics breaks down. Einstein tried to patch this with a universe that was hyperbolic and real. He made an educated guess about
the invariance of lightspeed, and asserted the contradictions associated with time dilation and length contraction, as they were necessary to support his flawed logic. The problem is that the universe is both hyperbolic and hypercomplex. Relativity does
not incorporate the hypercomplex feature. And physics will never find these features by their obsession with experiments.

Hypercomplex measurements are not possible, because they are perpendicular to all real dimensions, and cannot contribute to their magnitudes. Hypercomplex rotations are even perpendicular to complex rotations. This is best illustrated on the

surface of a sphere, where an ordinary complex rotation is a longitude shift, and a hypercomplex rotation is a latitude shift. Before relativity was a gleam in Einstein's eye, before Newton invented physics and calculus, even before Galileo proposed his
relativity, the basis of relativity was used to construct the Mercator Projection. That basis is the gudermannian function. Applying hyperbolic trigonometry to this function establishes the existence of a cosmic speed limit. It is the basis of a new
postulate that incorporates the hypercomplex nature of the universe. It is simply this: the laws of the universe do not allow any observer to measure any more than what is real to the observer. This supersedes Einstein's 2nd Postulate, and accounts for
other features like time dilation and length contraction as geometrical projections.

It is well-known that the Lorentz transformation is a pure, hyperbolic rotation. What is not so well-known is that every hyperbolic rotation is associated with a hypercomplex phase shift as well. This phase shift is the gudermannian of the

hyperbolic rotation angle, which we call rapidity. And this phase angle determines what is real to all observers, the real, cosine projection of the gudermannian. Since the gudermannian varies with relative velocity, reality is different for every
observer, and the contradictions of relativity vanish. Physics uses the gudermannian without naming it. When they assert that relative velocity can be expressed as c sin(θ), that defines the gudermannian angle, θ. Physics defines the Lorentz factor
empirically, based on countless observations. But it is still empirical. The gudermannian defines it analytically. Given an arbitrary hyperbolic angle, η, and its gudermannian, θ, dη/d

Sorry. This post accidentally got cut off before it was finished. To continue:

dη/dθ = γ, the Lorentz factor. This is an analytical definition. The solution to the diffeq can be expressed in numerous ways. Here is a list:
cosh(η) = sec(θ) = γ, the Lorentz factor
coth(η) = csc(θ)
csch(η) = cot(θ)
sech(η) = cos(θ) = 1/γ = α, the projection cosine that determines what portion is real
tanh(η) = sin(θ) = v/c
sinh(η) = tan(θ) = u/c = p/mc, celerity/c and relativistic momentum/mc

Differentiate any one of these forms with respect to either angle, and the result is the above diffeq. These solutions are pure math, yet they predict nearly all of special relativity. The math does not claim to be physics, but an impartial

comparison of the mathematical relationships shows that they are in complete agreement with all the experimental evidence. Closer analysis of the diffeq shows that it predicts a cosmic speed limit and the geometric reason why momentum does not follow
Newton's law (as well as why relativistic mass does not exist). The projection cosine also explains time dilation and length contraction, as well as a universal definition of simultaneity. They are, in fact, not necessary to prove the invariance of c,
but as all the above functions are members of a 6-group, they are all intimately related, and any one can be derived from any of the others. The myriad of applications of hyperbolic trigonometry to physics would take a book to list. That kind of space is
not available here. Wait for the book.

It's pretty new to me, and I am trying to process. Just now I've come across:
Good background on your work here: https://anilzen.github.io/post/hyperbolic-relativity
"The principle of relativity corresponds to the hypothesis that the kinematic space is a space of constant negative curvature, the space of Lobachevsky and Bolyai. The value of the radius of curvature is the speed of light." - Borel (1913)

To say that gravity naturally forms spheres: this is empirically true. Yet also I am witnessing that the sin of signal analysis is the sin of your geometry, and this idea that wave theory would tie so directly to geometry is striking to me in the

moment. Still, I fail to see the truth. Three ties that really go ignored in the standard regurgitation.Flat space gives us pi. I wonder if pi could change at large scale? It does have three in it...

A quick hypnotic puzzle has crept into my head this moment: A signal emanates from a source; very much a carrier wave, with only a subtle envelope; preserving its own band as much as leaving room for others. As signals must so it must vary. It is in

its variance that it conveys information. In that light conveys information so must it emanate from its source; complete its emanation from its source; develop over its path to its destination; perhaps a mold is encountered along the way; a faint hue of
Hydrogen, perhaps, was gone through, and now supposedly we are down to the background hue, and like a blue sky day we now can say that there is something there. And really, can I please get a response on the criticisms of the first principal of cosmology?
My fingers are aching...

I am so sorry to rant off of your own very serious change in gear, and really I feel as though I have inspired it in you. The inseparability is felt, I believe, or at least some aspiration to it. That would be plenty good.

Capitalism run amuck on the shores of Covid Technology '24, where I used to work as a clerk. Some there thought I was a jerk. I was way too obnoxious for them, and they had it in for me. The truth is it was the other way around. They were too obnoxious
for me. They couldn't take my seriousness, for what I saw as a dysfunctional technocracy. Why functional gets the dys and I got the dis I feel it necessary to disagree. No, it is my fear, and a need to speak it here, which are the cause of such strange
and cryptic things. I suggest you all be like Tommy, and if you've got one head home to your Mommy, and giver some love on a spree. Her days not long, nor yours, nor mine, nor anyones' in these parts I suspect. The Northeast at least will be like vomit
from a comet when the Russians get done with us. We do ourselves in, but where is the chagrine, as if you were taking it on the cheek, so to speak. The world is your sausage, I guess. Don't forget to wipe your short mustache.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:25:41 PM UTC-4, Johnny B. Goode wrote:

https://archive.org/details/polysigned_t12_and_three_flies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbT3fKt80k8&ab_channel=NetflixPhilippines

;)

You've got an inverse in your description:
"(Vector) Negation of a T12 number (subp2 style)
~z = ~.(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,m,n,p,q) = (g,h,m,n,p,q,a,b,c,d,e,f)"

The usage of the dot is sort of interesting; as in a product?
But the inversion is incorrect. We cannot merely swap values around.
Of course you've described it as a subp2 style inversion, but originally in P12, and
I suppose I'll have to read closer, because you don't generally make mistakes, but for instance had you incremented a in your initial value the inverse would show that as an increment across all the other components.
This is not a matter of a duality as you have it described here.
Is this partly why you call it T12? Tommy12?

I think then that the usage of the 'T' is OK, especially since the tatrix usage is extremely limited. The idea that you are not in P12 as well is significant.
In your tutorial on T12 you have as well left out the significance of the sign mechanics which in rudimentary terms for P12 would be:
( s1 x1 )( s2 x2 ) = ( (s1@s2)( x1x2) ) [ This sign mechanics actually being universal to Pn within polysign numbers ]
where the '@' is modulo twelve addition. I wonder if introducing a modulo addition is significant? Or really as it is the product; the sum is the sign product; could we as well simply state that it is s1s2x1x2? That's sort of a strange occurrence to be
worrying about here of all places, as it should have been done from the beginning, but the usage of the '@' as universal summation versus the occurrence of sign mechanics is worthy of discussion at least as far as notation goes. I'm looking back thinking
that it is a minor mistake in my own choice of notation.

Could the fact that we don't really have sign addition be a reminder of the (in)availability of operators and their constructions? Since when is a product and a sum the same damn thing? Then too, I did investigate the actual sign product, but maybe a
return to it could be good. Your Klein product worked out awfully good, which became table driven in the code such that really any mapping at all could take place; even a noncommutative form could be introduced within s[s1][s2], and I believe that is the
correct C encoding there. That's a lot of unsensible animals to investigate. Up in Z12, let's say, for the zoo, there would be 144 little critter caves to fill, and that really being just one beast.

To what degree does your T12 fit there? Is it only the inverse which is distinct? Are you sure these aren't going to break?
In the inverse coordinate swap it almost looks to me as if you are engaging P6xP2, which is actually only six dimensional.

Sometimes I think I'd be better off in the 1800's, and I don't mean toll free. Here in post Y2K sometimes it feels like everything is falling apart at the seams, and that speaks well for the fabric, except its hard to find any that isn't plastic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Timu, It seems to me that you are confusing the author with the the theoretical physicist (or the physician as the bassan guy would say), and now, confusing the author with the tetration-enthusiast guy.

:V

Well, that do no harm, confusion are always strange and, therefore, enjoyable

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It seems that the achievement of the cuboctahedron is merely a showcase, a way of decompose the space in "triangular" components, more or less, that is.

Certainly what vector negation does is merely swap the opposites components(ray).

By the way you well may try study the pacman product sometime in the future, after all is lawful a one-sided MU.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Respect the article, I would say that there is no product, yet, that is, merely a "scalar multiplication"( symbol '.'). It s like a vector space.
Notice that the cuboctahedron has pair of opposites rays, but also, at the same time has triplets of rays p3 disposition. One can not separate the literal p2-ness, nor the literal p3-ness of the cuboctahedron. You well may say that has the two
philosophies, teh cartesian and the goldesian, in on shot. If in the article has a product, then, a 12x12 table also would be there.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, Trinitchio Von threesh wrote:

It seems that the achievement of the cuboctahedron is merely a showcase, a way of decompose the space in "triangular" components, more or less, that is.

Certainly what vector negation does is merely swap the opposites components(ray).

By the way you well may try study the pacman product sometime in the future, after all is lawful a one-sided MU.

OK. Thanks Trinitchio. I did spend a little more time on it this morning, and I'm happy to say that while I probably did not absorb all of it, that I did manage to process it. It felt like a bit of a barrage, and still does really. Shall we say that you'
ve taken the freedom to construct to new heights? I am certain that it is excellent practice. I wouldn't exactly say that you've come out on the other side unscathed, but certainly the wounds will heal up and you'll be the better for the battle.

It's a funny thing about P2 and its two components which are fully exposed upon the generalization of sign. Then too, as your ants or flies hold to the plane how you landed in four components there is a mystery, but for this artifact of P2 and P2xP2,
which to many is the ordinary plane, and yet we will find that upon adopting P3 that practical issuances need merely two signed components to address the plane, and by component I mean magnitude.

I guess I will tell you here of my dog Magnitude passing on. She made it seventeen years. I was quite her caretaker toward the end, but still loved having her around. Of course her name is in awareness to polysign, and she was a small dog with a big
personality, and very independent too. I gave her quite a lot of freedom. She knew 'Maggie leads' and 'Maggie follows' for when we were out cross country skiing, and crossing a road I would get her to cross rapidly with 'cross the road' and she would
pretty dutifully. If we were out in the woods and a big enough tree was about to fall she learned 'danger!' and that turned out to be very useful right up until she went deaf; about three years ago. Anyway, I never mention her here, but to give you a
sense of her being without being overbearing I suppose that's pretty tight. She is buried up along the stone wall where my father is buried, and his dog Hobie, and probably myself one day.

The component business to me has clean resolution within polysign, and it is simply by admitting that standard mathematics works in reduced form. So for instance let's say a whiz-bang sixth grade math class gets a final exam problem that involves fifteen
computations, and one student answers -21.3+0.01, while another student gets -22.3+1.01, and a third student gets -21.29. None of these answers are wrong. They all agree. The latter is simply the reduced form, and to what degree we should insist on that
reduced form goes away a bit as we engage polysign and reach up to P3, where we see three components but a reduced form in two components. In this regard we can even maintain the term 'dimension', but I don't. I try to respect the term 'dimension' as
pertaining to the real value. Perhaps this is a mistake though. To travel back to times of physicality, which are lost to modern mathematics, the term dimension certainly would not include any sign, and the adoption of the two-signed numbers a bit too
early in the progression somewhat explains the current position which makes learning the three-signed, four-signed, and so forth even more challenging. These are mistakes of notation and convention.

I feel that rather than clearing out those ambiguities you have somewhat piled them up within your construction. To what degree they lay piled up as well in RxR or RxRxR or RxRxRxR, or those damn less algebraic things like quaternions, octonions, and so
forth: well, from the polysign perspective yes, they do. Why then, just as I confessed an additional component is available within the polysign version of geometry would I care? To admit that the plane can find its representative with just three rays,
rather than four: here lays the difference, and proceeding onward and upward this simplification accrues.

Whether you are that evil young torturer of tetration, or some imposter, I have reason to believe that you are he; that your memorable personality traits have still a flavor of your youth. By the way, I practice tetration in my laundry. A plastic bucket
gets rainwater and liquid detergent. Give that a stir and some suds form up. Drop in the grimy clothes and the stuff comes out. some floats to the top, and here I see an opportunity for a tetrational improvement. If I would just leave that bucket under
the eaves for a few drops of water to enter then the top scum should drizzle off if the bucket be truly full of water. Could it be that I well achieve extra clean? Could it be that something magical is going on at that top interface and that a scum of
oil is preventing further oxidation or some such atmospheric interaction with the contents? Perhaps I should even add a ground electrode, or simply try a galvanized pail. To admit that these differences are subtle is indeed the case, and whether
observable results are even present would go ignored by most. And yet these are the sorts of gains that beget the transistor, or the steam engine, or the compass. As the topic of this thread goes, the question can be related as to whether there is any
hope of such interesting consequences ever arising in RxRxR? What then are we doing with that as a basis, and is going to RxRxRxR really going to get us much more? Do these details in their complexity ever have any hope and if not then what are we even
doing working on the outer-most system known as cosmology? At some level, if we cannot get the electron or the atom from pure mathematics then the system is compromised. This is indeed the current situation. Did you think you could start as an ape and
get it all right from the beginning? This clearly has not occurred for humans. The quality of the progression can involve digressive episodes, and maybe instead of 'can' I should put in 'must'.

To me this idea that a future theory awaits us all which will have more powerful correspondence with physical reality, and that it's behaviors lay within pure mathematics; to confess that it's a mess, I concede that the need might be felt by some to
challenge existing theory and in the wake of the break perhaps a morsel found will be profound. Of course this is the journey that we are all on here and we ought to celebrate anybody's discovery along the way, but as well let's get the context straight.
Somehow in my age I am learning that context means something. As we work in limited contexts all the time within our niche protected from other niches, whereby the room is made for all to evolve a sort of fraud does creep in. I'm pretty sure that the
hinge that I am swinging from is semiclassical in nature. It is from a time when these sects were less sectored. We are in a time of resectored sectors, and perhaps that is what requires investigation. To land overwhelmed with no hope of taking the lot
or knowing all those details; no, noone ever will. On a bad basis we should expect such an outcome.

Incidentally I don't take offense to word salad. It is a question of its qualities. Sorry if I've wasted your time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sorry to hear about your dog Magnitude. I guess, I am finite also, with those brave ants, or those giant mountains, all have a brief time in this earth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The news, either from the right, left or center, either mainstream or conspiracy-like
https://vigilante.tv/
https://banned.video/

News are rather dark, and do not help to improve mood.

Well, reading some of the challenges of the article will put a smile in your face again. Although there is some humor here and there, there is no random details, all has its place.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ades3pQbeh8&ab_channel=Netflix

A journey, a deep adventure, a fragrance of uncertainty

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)