If the universe was a toroid

There would be twp r4, and  r1 and r2, r1 less than half the size of r2.

If we looked acrorss the universe, as if R2 was correct, R1 parallel to it, then we see many different galaxies from the toroid interior, light coming at us from two angles. All of the reflections taking tow angled spiral, all looking farther and redder.  Some thing we would see twice, from two different angles.  Look as if we were R1, the long axis.  We would interpret  the universe to be sparse and large and old.  If we looked as if R1 ruled, the Universe looks smaller, and some things would look older in R1 but younger in r2.

All the galazies are likely mostly aligned the R1 diameter, but we would not notice unless we deliberately adjusted for toroidal lensing.    We look at our galaxay, the black hole.  Iy is perpindicular to the larg diameter. So looking across it, we are looking at the center of the long axis R1.  And the long axis and the short axis thus cmbine to make a north and south pole. Galaxies hae a north south, and the entire toroid has one by perpendicularity.

How would we tell R1 from R2? Check to see if their is a break in distance out, a point where the arrangements slightly change rules and get fuzzy.  If the far away gets too fuzzy and too mixed, too soon then we need to shorten r1, and lengthen r2.  Th r&2 should  should be within a fourth of each other.  

We get a w,x,y,z and x and y should be slightly more than half a part.  One counts once the other twice, and z keeps the blance such that over two rounds, we get four rollovers, four times an axis issued a correction twice in a row.   In other words, this is a four color, the operator will be doing R1 then R2,   You will have a superposition of color operators, two I think.

  We can look at a graph of mid sized black holes.  Is their a common axis about which they are all equally dense, compared to quasars, for example.   Then estimate the density at two Rs, independent, and Adjust the one curvature relative to the other.  Then with a perspective on radius and potential centers, check fr similar galaxies to be lined up one on or the other axis.

Now looking farhestt into the past means looking through the center of the milky way, assuming its black hole leaks along the long diameter.  Or finding tha long axis and fixing on the best aligned galaxy and look on the circle.  You will look always the back to you butt, the universe will be cyclical.  The dislocations betweem R1 and R2 will cause quasars, likely in the center of the toroid.    This quasar acitivity creates, adjusts the spin, w.  But it takes the whole circle for us to see it and we think it is a big bag.  The quasars are much close, measure usimg the short R2.  Then happen more than we think and get spread out in space time, fooling us 3d folks.  Black holes mostly aligned the long diameter, spiral a bit in the short diameter and crash together. We see in in the short, but there are huge emissions along the long diameter. We cannot see them, but this is actual vacuum moving, and I eventually take the long diameret around while spiraling to the center and goes back the the quasar.   We should know that looking straight up from ur spiral in the milk means we are looking at the long path around the universe.

  We take the short and long, and eventually reach the center of spin and go through a quasar process.  Light is a bit slower, over all, but in any 3D system it will obey Einsteins relativity.  Gravity is 

(R1^2 + R2^2) * M1 *  M2.  That is, any topology that goes uniformly to a point will e oval.  Light is three steps, Bolttzman 5/4.   Four dimensional systems have an extra axis to put kinetic energy, so sample rate reduces and Planck goes to four.

We think light is moving faster, so thing are always seem farther away  Mickelson's experiment was too short to catch the spiral.