Sorry Paul, but you're miles from understanding my model:
>>>"(The tesseract) happens to be the simplest and most straightforward, and yet accurate, way of doing so."
In other words, and the tesseract is the simplest model you know of.
The tesseract shows a 3 dimensional cube, and connects it with another, offset & identical 3 dimensional cube. It then attempts to indicate 4D perspective by moving one or both cubes through 2 dimensions. Nonsense. What you get is a very awkward manner of expressing the effect of the fourth spatial dimension.
It's much like representing a 3d cube by drawing a square, and connecting it with another, offest & identical square -- a very common way of drawing a cube, sure, but certainly not the best. The third dimension is much harder to perceive without perspective. HOWEVER, represent a cube on paper by drawing a square, and then connecting it to a similar, but not precisely equal cube (i.e., by acknowledging the resultant perspective), and you are showing the effect of a third spatial dimension.
>>>"Your method produces a degenerate case of a cube-within-a-cube tesseract."
LOL! Did you even read my description? There is no second cube in model.
>>>"Total non-sequitur. The 'curled up' theory has nothing to do with inflation."
Really? Nothing? Hmmm...
Okay, okay... I should not have used the term 'theory,' as I don't think there's any real theory just yet. And, if there is a theory (and not just some hypotheses) called "The Curled Up Theory," then I experienced another one of my cerebral flatulence episodes. Duh! But, no matter -- my knowledge of the ideas of others is not at issue here.
I'm speaking from my own model, of which I introduced a tidbit, and that we've already established you cannot fathom. Insult it all you want, but if you can't even grasp its simplest modicum your criticism of it is obviously a reflection of ignorance, and has no bearing on reality. Sorry, I don't have a nice, user-friendly website, packed with graphics, for the benefit of my descriptions. Frankly, I don't think anyone would be interested, and those who might be (like you) will just insult my ineptitude, anyway.
>>>"...the picture of your degenerate hypercube adds nothing."
Let me try again. Maybe you'll agree with the following:
(1) Here's a "necker cube": http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:khhJXL0q3VsC:www.phys.uni.torun.pl/~duch/
(2) Here's a "tesseract": http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:mBOpnpNuDl4C:www.geocities.com/~harveyh
(3) Here's a "hypercube," sometimes equated with the "tesseract": http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:WDwP3LqNGH8C:www.hpcc.ecs.soton.ac.uk
Of these three, the "hypercube" is the best model out there, but still lacking in facilitating an understanding of a fourth spatial dimension.
A Necker cube? LOL! Sorry pal, but I really believe you're just a tad out of your visualization league here.