Why didn’t you remind people
that relativity of spacetime relationship
is double-bound and fractally rhythmed
under he Commons Metric Assumption
of 3 spatial and 1 bilateral progenitive time dimension
equals a Zero-Moment spacetime-centric
balancing thermodynamic theory?
Why didn’t you choose my word “relativity”
rather than your more positive-slanted “synergy”
in your geometrics of universal consciousness?
Eulerian prime relationality is midway positive
but also double-knotted and fractal negative,
If Synergetics has a positive stance,
it may also be true
that “relativity” has a negatively-reductive slant.
Zero-Core Concave/Convex Universe
as Prime Relationship
feels more nondually transparent
than a Universal Theory of Relativity…
but, oh yes, by the way,
this Relativity of space and time story
within our shared assumption
of 4 equidimensional dynamics
as Prime Fractal SpaceTime Relationship.
I don’t recall saying anything about fractals,
although I did stipulate a 3-Space and 1-Time
as we know it in human-consciousness.
But c-squared begins with a fractal.
regenerate metric-logical fractals.
To commodify the speed of light’s 0-Core Time
is to point directly at Bohm’s Implicate Order
of fractal form and functional dynamic syntax
You think too much in ecologic.
Math and physics
boil and toil and trouble
more inclusively as Group Theory.
have you been following what Thurston
and those folks
have been saying
about the double-elliptical binding 0-soul core
of any integrative,
and logically possible,
Einstein: No, zero is much too small
to timelessly hold
my eternally universal interest.
Not that I always need the last word
but zero is also much too timeless
to share your expansive consciousness.
That was a good one.