Buckminster Fuller

[Turtle]

___I realize that not everyone has the inclination or leisure to explore this deeply; that is the bane & the boon of the recluse.

___In reading more Synergetics & grappling with the style, I came up with an hypothesis. To whit, it is only difficult if you read it squarely, but a walk in the park when you realize it's written triangularly. The exposition then is self-similar tetrahedrally, not cubic.

___Reading between the lines takes on a different orientation also. Our written lines line-up in cells of a square matrix, so we read between the lines on a square matrix. I have no explicit path examples yet as it just occured to me, but I found subtlety. Fuller never outright says "make A modules & play with them"; instead he shows the pattern & expects you to just do it. Holding & turning & assembling/disassembling these shapes imparts a "knowingness" wholly inaccessible through a drawing.

___I intend to make a set of 24 at least now; I recommend heavy paper. 20 pound seems a little squishy, card stock doesn't fold sharp. I have good results with 35 pound. A side note on the mold idea, glue the tabs outside instead of in. :lol:

[Turtle]

___I have all 24 planar nets for the A Module printed & 6 cut out. In front of me as I work I have a print of this Fuller geometric exposition:

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/figs/f9001.html

___I note the image actually appears near the squarely logical end of the treatise, but is tensorially connected (referred to) in the earliest section. Again, conditioning is apparent to me; how many childrens' toy boxes have a set of tetrahedral blocks or A Quanta Module blocks?

___Study the diagram until you see why it is significant, while mvong ahead in the reading. If you don't actually build the tetrahedral block, imagine yourself pushing them & their cube counterparts around & how they stack, move, etc. It comes around again & again from first principles. :lol:

[Turtle]

___I have my modules all cut out & 2 assembled; I note in the last post the drawing I refered to doesn't have these A Quanta Modules pictured & I regret any confusion.

___I already see that constructing with tetrahedral blocks or their subdivisions is a slippery enterprise, but I remain undaunted. Anyone else pursuing this still? So much to discover in Fuller's Synergetics & then run off to try & justify it to my previous related knowledge. A delightful & vexing distraction. :eek_big:

[Turtle]

___Lately I have just continued reading & skipping from section to section, diagram to diagram. Anyway, no one seems to post a response to comments on Fuller in the lively discussions we have on time, quantum physics, & dimnensions. One term I saw used -"metrc"- I looked up in order to better follow these discussions, & I have to conclude that Fullers metric on a tetrahedral matrix is significantly different than the cartersian metric. Moreover, Fuller "explains" the consequences in exsquisite detail.

___I have to re-find the section on the Dymaxian map projection, but it is clear evidence of Fullers view having significant utility.

___In the mean time, here is a link to a section on time:

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p2800.html#530.10

[Turtle]

___More on Fuller's tetrahedral metric.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/p2000.html#420.00

100.51 Dr. Frank Morley, a professor of mathematics at Johns Hopkins University, was the author of a theorem on triangular symmetry: The three interior intersection points of the trisectors of any triangle's three angles will always describe an equiangular triangle. It may be demonstrated graphically as in Fig. 100.51. This theorem is akin to the tetrahedral coordinate system of synergetics (Sec. 420), which describes how the superficial dissimilarities and aberrations of the tetrahedron in no way alter any of its constant symmetries of omnirational subdivisioning .

:eek_big:

[Turtle]

___I have briefly suspended my straight-through reading of Synergetics in order to employ some of Fuller's insights in my own Katabatak explorations. Nonetheless, I continue to refer back to his marvelous touchstone. To whit:

" 100.102 The child-scientist's show opens with reiteration of rigorous science's one- and-only acceptable proof: experientially redemonstrable physical evidence. All of the scenario's proofs__and their rationally interrelated number values__derive exclusively from progressive equatorial-symmetry-halvings of Universe's minimum structural system: the tetrahedron. Multiplication occurs only through progressive fractionation of the original complex unity of the minimum structural system of Universe: the tetrahedron. "

___I'm just alittle boy. :hihi:

[Turtle]

Touchstone time. Although I justify Bucky, he obviously doesn't need my help. At the beginning of Synergetics, Bucky (I hope he doesn't dislike that monicker) gives the brief Moral of The Work: (itallics & kaffee mine)

 

Moral of the Work

Dare to be naive.

 

Please do not refrain from reading this book because you have become suspicious that a comprehensive inventory of discovery precludes further discovery.

 

It is one of our most exciting discoveries that local discovery leads to a complex of further discoveries. Corollary to this we find that we no sooner get a problem solved than we are overwhelmed with a multiplicity of additional problems in a most beautiful payoff of heretofore unknown, previously unrecognized, and as-yet unsolved problems.

 

A complex of further discoverabilities is inherent in eternally regenerative Universe and its omni-interaccommodative complex of unique and eternal generalized principles. It is inherently potential in the integrity of eternal regeneration and the inherent complexity of unity that god is the unknowable totality of generalized principles which are only surprisingly unveiled, thereby synergetically inaugurating entirely new, heretofore unpredicted-because unpredictable-ages .

 

Each age is characterized by its own astronomical myriads of new, special-case experiences and problems to be stored in freshly born optimum capacity human brains-which storages in turn may disclose to human minds the presence of heretofore undiscovered, unsuspectedly existent eternal generalized principles. RBF :)

[Turtle]

___No matter the topic here in a thread, it seems Buckminster has a view of it in Synergetics. Any of you continuing to read it? Find any gems?

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s02/p5000.html#260.00

 

260.10 Invisibility of Macro- and Microresolutions

260.11 The eye of a healthy human can comfortably perceive an interval of 1/50th of an inch, and the human?s timing sense can recognize the rhythm of identical minimum intervals lying between the black vertical lines of an engineer?s white ivory measuring scale, but with optimum naked eyesight humans can only with great difficulty read on a scale that equals l/100th of an inch. Humans? eyesight cannot ?resolve,? i.e., differentially perceive l/200th-inch intervals between microdots of l/200th-of-an-inch diameter. For these reasons black-and-white or color printing plates for picture reproductions, which consist of subvisible benday screen dots spread l/200th of an inch apart, produce pictures whose surface information appears to humans as being realistically "continuous" and as a progressive color blending__ergo, natural.

260.12 The diameter of the spherical activity domain of a single atom, including the electrons orbiting its nucleus, is called one angstrom. And one angstrom is l/2,500,000th the diameter of the smallest humanly seeable speck. Moreover, the diameter of the atomic nucleus is l/10,000th of one angstrom, and the nucleus has now been found to consist of a plurality of further "particles" such as quarks, leptons, hadrons, and so forth. Humans have now developed electromagnetic sensors, have microphotographed individual atoms, and have macrophotographed a billion galaxies, each of hundreds of billions of star- population magnitudes__99.9999 percent of which information about reality is invisible to the naked human eye. (See Sec. 1238.60.) What humans have been experiencing and thinking of "realistically" as dim "somethings" or "points" in a field of omnidirectional seeming nothingness now requires experimentally provable reconsideration, epistemographic reconceptioning, and rewording.

:Waldo:

[Turtle]

___Take a moment to cogitate on Fuller's Dymaxion Map:

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s11/figs/f0102.html

:hyper:

___I actually found it looking for some Fuller discussions on gravity; I know it's in here somewhere. :hihi:

[Turtle]

____A plethora of Fuller's challenging ideas from Synergetics, including some on gravity:

 

 

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s10/figs/f0957b.html

 

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s10/figs/f0957a.html

Perhaps a reference to Fullerenes?

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s10/figs/f0957a.html

Fianlly a gravity reference:

1001.21 Since the myriads of eccentricities of cyclic periodicities of omni- everywhere-and-everywhen complex intermotions of intertransforming Universe inherently defy any "fixed" overall frame of cosmic motion referencing; and since the omnicosmic presence of mass-attractive and tensionally operative gravity means that no so-called straight line can be generated by any one body, as all bodies are affected by other bodies in varying degrees; and since all bodies are in motion either independently or in company with other bodies and are axially rotating on precessionally skewed axes as they elliptically orbit their dominant bodies (or dominant collection of bodies); wherefore, any point on any body progressively describes only an overall pattern in Universe of a cyclic, curlicue, wavilinear, elliptically-orbiting-within-elliptically-orbiting of larger systems.

___Find Synergetics free online at:

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html

 

___Who among you dares to cross a line in search of knowledge? :hihi:

:hyper:

[Turtle]

Have a go at this diagram:

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s10/figs/f3231.html

PS: Have a go at the section collection:

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/findex/fx1000.html

 

PPS: Radiation & Gravity

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/syner...100.html#541.00

 

:surprise:

[Southtown]

...eternally regenerative Universe... RBF :)

So, dude. Have you read Halton Arp? Very eery how these two authors agree...

 

Another thing, I don't understand how a tensive gravity can resist a pushive radiation.

 

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p4100.html

[Turtle]

So, dude. Have you read Halton Arp? Very eery how these two authors agree...

 

Another thing, I don't understand how a tensive gravity can resist a pushive radiation.

 

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p4100.html

 

I have not heard of Halton Arp until now; checking.

As I understand it, the balance is inherent in the geometry of the tetrahedron; radiation & gravity - compression & tension - most stable structure - yada, yada, yada.

 

541.06 Gravity's omniembracing collectiveness precessionally generates circumferential surface foldings__waves (earthquakes)__consequent to the second-power rate of surface diminution in respect to the radially-measured, first-power linear rate of system contraction. Gravity is innocent of wave. Gravity is innocent of radial; i.e., linear aberration waves; i.e. gravity is nonwavilinear. The most economical interterminal relationship is always that with the least angular aberration. Gravity is the geodesic__most economical__relationship of events.

541.07 Gravity's awavilinear, collective, integrative, economical effectiveness is always greater than that of the radiation's disintegrative, wavilinear distributiveness; ergo, gravity guarantees the integrity of eternally regenerative omni-intertransformative Universe.

541.08 Radiation is wavilinearly and radially distributive; ergo, it is central-angle partitioned. Circularly, it means a single central angle. Spherically, it means a minimum of three central angles: those of a tetrahedron formed with a circumferential limit of the surface of the speed-of-light radial reach.

541.09 Radiation is tetrahedral. A tetrahedron is a tetrahedron independent of size. There are points and no-points. They are both tetrahedral.

541.10 Gravity is circumferentially omniembracing and is never partial, but always whole. Radiation is always packaged. Gravity is the inside-outness of energy-as-matter: the integrity of Universe. It is the sum of all the no-points embracing all the points; and it compounds at the surface-embracing, second-power rate of the linear proximity gains. All the no-points (novents) are always embracing all the points. All the quanta are local- system, center of-event activity, focal points__fractionations of the whole point: what are minimally, ergo, most economically, packaged, and expanded outwardly and omnidiametrically as three-central-angle-defined tetrahedra. (See Secs. 251.05 and 529.03.)

[Southtown]

I have not heard of Halton Arp until now; checking.

Well, I ask because RBF says "eternally regenerative universe"... Halton Arp is a highly experienced astronomer who started his career working with E. Hubble. I bought his second book, "Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science", because I thought it was a revision to the first. But, since this one continually refers to the first book, "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversy", it must a sequel.

 

I'm only three chapters into it, but it already implies major errors in "establishment" cosmology, considering the magnitude and repetition of his evidence. Here's a summary of the first two chapters in his own words.

_____

“In spite of a deliberate effort to avoid them, a large number of cases of quasars undeniably associated with much lower reshift galaxies have accumulated. Based on the discussion of the first two chapters of this book, the unavoidable conclusion, stated as simply as possible, is this:

_____

It is clear that, spectroscopically, a quasar looks like a small portion of an active (Seyfert-like) [galaxy] nucleus. That supports the conclusion, from their ubiquitous pairing tendency across the active nuclei, that they have been ejected in opposite directions from this central point, which shows similar physical conditions. As explained in the introduction, starting in about 1948, it has become an article of firm belief that galaxies eject radio emitting material in opposite directions. The quasars often show radio emission, as well as the other attributes of matter in an energetic state, such as X-ray emission and excited optical emission lines.

The only possible conclusion from this observational evidence is that quasars are energized condesations of matter which have been recently ejected from active galaxy nuclei

.

_____

We will see later, however, that it will be necessary to consider the quasar to be made of more recently created matter in order to account for its higher intrinsic redshift.”

_____

— Halton Arp,

Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science

, p.54, 1998

The book so far is completely stuffed with supporting data: pictures, numbers, references, and fairly stated observation.

 

But another thing has caught my attention along this same vein: a post by C1ay called 4285 which says galaxies may be fulcrumed by black holes. Then, the thought crossed my mind, 'would a black hole eventually eject accumulated matter along its axis?' I mean, the stuff has to go somewhere, right? That wouldn't necessarily harmonize with RBF's "eternally regenerative universe".

[Southtown]

Plainly put, Arp attempts to turn the formation of both galaxies and clusters from an accretion model into a secretion model. Galaxy arms are trails from quasars ejected by a spinning nucleus. The quasars then aged and condensed into galaxies to repeat the cycle and eventually formed clusters.

 

This all obviously adheres better to Synergetics than to thermodynamics. LOL

[Turtle]

___I like your insights Southy! Here is something rolling round my head & bouncing your way. Is Fuller's tetrahedral geometry similar to string theory, but ahh say... 'rigid' view? :eek: Just a thought.

[Turtle]

Just finishing up watching a PBS show on cemetaries. Among those toured, Mt. Auburn outside of Boston & who's stone do you think caught my eye? Mr. Fuller's of course. Here's a page with a short bio & a photo of his unassuming stone:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pis&GRid=1403&PIgrid=1403&PIcrid=91241&PIpi=1201402&

Happy Halloween. :confused: