From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Sep 12 19:36:28 2002 Return-Path: Received: from acsu.buffalo.edu (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.57]) by linux00.LinuxForce.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with SMTP id g8CNaRL2012748 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:36:27 -0400 Message-Id: <200209122336.g8CNaRL2012748@linux00.LinuxForce.net> Received: (qmail 14171 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2002 23:28:59 -0000 Received: from listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 23:28:59 -0000 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:28:59 -0400 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Buffalo (1.8d)" Subject: File: "GEODESIC LOG9704" To: Chris Fearnley Content-Length: 284742 Lines: 6448 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 00:00:06 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: *SEMI-MONTHLY POSTING* - GEODESIC 'how-to' info ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the semi-monthly "How To" file about the GEODESIC list. It has info on content and purpose of the list, as well as subscription info, posting instructions, etc. It should prove useful to new subscribers, as well as those who are unfamiliar with LISTSERV operations. This message is being posted on Tue Apr 1 00:00:03 PST 1997. If you are tired of receiving this message twice per month, and are reading bit.listserv.fnord-l through USENET news, then you can enter this subject into your KILL/SCORE file. If you're reading through email, you can set up a filter to delete the message. Both of these tricks are WELL worth learning how to do, if you don't know already. And isn't it about time to learn something new? Isn't it always? :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GEODESIC is a forum for the discussion of the ideas and creations relating to the work of R. Buckminster (Bucky) Fuller. Topics range from geodesic math to world hunger; floating cities to autonoumous housing, and little bit of everything in between. On topic discussion and questions are welcome. SPAM and unsolicited promotions are not. (Simple, eh?) ----------------------- To subscribe, send mail to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SUB GEODESIC When you want to post, send mail to GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU ******NOT***** to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU! LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is for subscriptions, administrivia, archive requests, etc. GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is the actual discussion group. Anything sent to GEODESIC will go to all members. (And you don't want to look like a jerk having everyone see your "SUB GEODESIC John Q. Public" command! ;^) ) This list is also linked to USENET in the group bit.listserv.geodesic If you want to receive copies of everything you send to the list, use the command SET GEODESIC REPRO. If you DON'T want copies, use SET GEODESIC NOREPRO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO SIGN OFF THE LIST: Simply send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SIGNOFF GEODESIC You should receive a confirmation note in the mail when you have been successfully removed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LIST ARCHIVES: - Reference.COM has begun archiving this list as of: Jan. 4, 1997 - Searchable archives for the lists are available at: http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=GEODESIC@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu And of course, Listserv itself is keeping archives of the list, dating back to June, 1992. Send a note to listserv@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu with this message in the BODY of the note: INDEX GEODESIC You can get help on other Listserv commands by putting the line HELP into the body of the note. (Can be in the same message.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (You may want to save this file to forward on to people who are interested, as it tells what the list is about, and how to subscribe and unsubscribe.) Pat _____________________________Think For Yourself______________________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- Don't break the Law...fix it. ;^) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 08:20:02 +0100 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: GE-BASES Organization: edf Subject: elliptical domes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello from France ! Could anyone explain me the definition of the axial angle for elliptical domes ? I know the definition for spherical domes (angle between a line drawn from the center of the sphere and the strut), that have a unique real geometrical center... but elliptical domes do not have a unique center ! My e-mail is : sabine.malard@edfgdf.fr Tanks a lot ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:44:57 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: April Hechter Subject: Re: Use of calculators in the classroom (pro's and con's) In a message dated 97-03-29 18:31:01 EST, you write: << student, is precisely the point). I later found out about Bernoulli's much earlier forays into this area -- my discoveries connect directly to his. We need to empower kids with the knowledge that 'obtaining a result already obtained by someone else in the past' is NOT a put down, but exciting confirmation of the power of logic to transcend generations and personal circumstances. >> here, here! it is the process of derivation that matters, not who gets there first. It is the exercise that counts, not the destination. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:56:37 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Curriculum Strategy Notes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for that heartfelt posting Sir Koski. I agree, minus taking action, we're squandering our opportunity to make a positive difference. Like J. Baldwin says in BuckyWorks, he's been waiting for decades for professors to answer him intelligently about the content of Synergetics, the invention behind the inventions. As I pointed out in 1991, there's not denying that Fuller's links penetrate deeply to the core, with the geodesic dome serving as a mental block if used to simply pigeon-hole his genius under 'architecture'.[1] Sure, lots in synergetics is way speculative, but the simple K12 level curriculum rewrite, the parts that belong on Sesame Street, is nothing you can turn your back on as 'too difficult' to understand. Since we're talking both higher living standards and ending death by starvation (flip sides of the same coin) as a big part of the design science push, the stakes are obviously high, and yet longer delays by academia in coming to grips = yet a bigger backlash against those high tuitions that never- theless left kids under-prepared. We may be getting a lot of requests for tuition refunds, especially when you take into account all the changes to BizEd that have yet to reach the rank and file. News of curriculum changes in this area are filtering out only slowly, thanks to the complacency of economists who still think their sorry discipline has a monopoly over bread and butter survival issues.[2] My own strategy has been to lay track to the new geometry curriculum via K-12, which means PhDs and other educrats monitoring these channels have had to at least evaluate and maybe counter these recruitment efforts, depending at what level they assess the threat. So far, the typical response is "I don't have time for..." (i.e. the usual) but as the newsgroup archives fills with design science curriculum fragments, complete with URLs for follow-up (e.g. check DejaNews [3]), we're at least closing off any avenue for retreat along the "but you never gave us any opportunities for healthy debate" route. No, it was all done in the open, as per democratic principles. Any whining about 'a conspiracy' is going to come off sounding pretty bogus to anyone bothering to check the historical record. Kirby 4D Solutions [1] http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/synergetica/synergetica1.html [2] http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/gstuniv.html [3] http://www.dejanews.com/ ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:19:36 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gordon Smith Subject: Re: Curriculum Strategy Notes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Kirby, As a Middle School Science teacher I am open to the new geometry curriculum via K-12. What applications in the classroom do you have in mind? Any good resources would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all for your consideration and interesting group explorations. Best wishes, Gordon Smith ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 22:32:37 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: Re: Dome Design, Aquaculture & Hydroponics In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970327015437.0079c7a0@mail.jadeinc.com> (message from Shon Lenzo on Thu, 27 Mar 1997 01:54:37 -0500) -From: Shon Lenzo - -> I plan to design a virtual model first. -> -Shon >> -> ->This sounds very exciting...am new to this board...how large is this ->structure going to be? What materials are you planning to use? Struts? ->Panels? Hydroponic Tanks? What do you plan to grow? - -I am looking into several options and sending around for ALOT of info! -I have never built a dome before, but one idea I am contemplating -involves building a frame out of these connectors at the correct angles -and pipe. I would put a plastic double wall over this for the greenhouse -effect....Inside, there would be a pool of water with Tilapia.(= 1 unit) Where are you located? Keep in mind that Tilapia are illegal in some states. (They're such tremendous breeders that if they get into a local strem or lake, they can quickly take over and crowd out all the native species.) California is one of those states. Be careful not to run afoul of the local EPA or fish & game wardens. All that aside, Tilapia are supposed to be one of the better commercial fishes to grow. They give great output (read: edible parts of the fish) per unit of input (read: fish food). There's a good article in a copy of "The Growing Edge" (magazine) from Spring of 1991 on Aquaculture, and they show a few commercial setups using Tilapia and various hydroponic plant systems. -There could be several 'units' per dome. -Water really holds the heat in (at night,etc.) -Each pool would be connected to 5 growing beds with tomatoes, lettuce, -and a couple other plants. -The fish wastes are converted by bacteria in the gravel growing medium -into nitrogen rich foods for the plants.The water returns 95% pure -to the happy fish!...and the cycle continues. -A symbiotic synergy of plants & fish.For each LB. of fish produced, -you alsio get 40 LBS. of produce. Fish harvest=600 lbs/tank every six -months.After a while, you harvest every month. -The dome is the optimum shape for this arrangement because -it has properties that positively affect the growth of plants, is the -'closest packing of spheres' (Photons) - has excellent heat properties, are always ay the right angle to catch - the sun optimally.. etc. -The size could be as big as you want, but i think it would be the most -efficient to keep them somewhat small-medium sized..... -just big enough for maybe 2 1200 gallon 'pools' and 10 growing beds. -I am also going to be looking for land in Oregon to build a dome house -on....not planned out yet. --Shon - Sounds like a great plan! I'm currently putting together a small-scale (single house) system with my 55 gallon aquarium and 50 vegetable seedlings we planted a few weeks ago. (Tomatoes, peppers, spinach, lettuce, beans, etc.) We're going to set up a nutrient flow technique (NFT) system where the water from the aquarium gets pumped out to a gravel-filled gutter system that the plants are in, which will allow the nitrate-rich water to flow past the roots, and eventually end up in a bucket that will allow for pumping back to the fish tank. I've even got some little pumps & solar cells, so I can try to make the system run off of solar power. We'll see... :-) I'll be putting up a web page with details and photos once the system is a bit more devloped. For now you may want to read a paper I wrote last year for the Hydroponics Society of America conference in San Jose. It's called "Hydroponics and Housing for the 21st Century" and is located at: http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Articles/house.paper Glad to see others working on this! As you develop your system, Shon, try to think of ways to make it easy enough to take to a third world country and teach to villagers who aren't necessarily schooled or skilled. If we can figure out ways of helping people to produce their own food, a lot of current problems will decrease significantly. -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- The only smart thing to do is to get smarter. -- Timothy Leary, The Intelligence Agents ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:59:45 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gabriella Szabo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" subsribe geodesic Gabriella Szabo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 22:53:26 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970402084922.2ff75d26@rkt.gau.hu> (message from Gabriella Szabo on Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:59:45 -0500) -X-Sender: szgabi@rkt.gau.hu -X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) -MIME-Version: 1.0 -Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" -Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic -Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:59:45 -0500 -Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works" - -Sender: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works" - -From: Gabriella Szabo - -subsribe geodesic Gabriella Szabo - Send those commands to LISTSERV@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU This is 1997, everything's automatic, nowadays... (Except my replies to these things... ;^) ) -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses. -- H. L. Mencken ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:22:42 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Shon Lenzo Subject: Re: Dome Design, Aquaculture & Hydroponics In-Reply-To: <199704020632.WAA02292@bootstrap.sculptors.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello- >the fish) per unit of input (read: fish food). There's a good article in a >copy of "The Growing Edge" (magazine) from Spring of 1991 on Aquaculture, >and they show a few commercial setups using Tilapia and various hydroponic >plant systems. Yes, I have a copy of the article you mention---Tom Sperano of SNS Aquasystems. >-There could be several 'units' per dome. >-Water really holds the heat in (at night,etc.) >-Each pool would be connected to 5 growing beds with tomatoes, lettuce, >-and a couple other plants. >-The fish wastes are converted by bacteria in the gravel growing medium >-into nitrogen rich foods for the plants.The water returns 95% pure >-to the happy fish!...and the cycle continues. >-A symbiotic synergy of plants & fish.For each LB. of fish produced, >-you alsio get 40 LBS. of produce. Fish harvest=600 lbs/tank every six >-months.After a while, you harvest every month. >-The dome is the optimum shape for this arrangement because >-it has properties that positively affect the growth of plants, is the >-'closest packing of spheres' (Photons) >- has excellent heat properties, are always ay the right angle to catch >- the sun optimally.. etc. >-The size could be as big as you want, but i think it would be the most >-efficient to keep them somewhat small-medium sized..... >-just big enough for maybe 2 1200 gallon 'pools' and 10 growing beds. >-I am also going to be looking for land in Oregon to build a dome house >-on....not planned out yet. >--Shon >- > Sounds like a great plan! I'm currently putting together a >small-scale (single house) system with my 55 gallon aquarium and 50 >vegetable seedlings we planted a few weeks ago. (Tomatoes, peppers, >spinach, lettuce, beans, etc.) We're going to set up a nutrient flow >technique (NFT) system where the water from the aquarium gets pumped out to >a gravel-filled gutter system that the plants are in, which will allow the >nitrate-rich water to flow past the roots, and eventually end up in a >bucket that will allow for pumping back to the fish tank. > I've even got some little pumps & solar cells, so I can try to make >the system run off of solar power. We'll see... :-) I have a system alot like this running in my living room!! ---Don't forget bacteria in the growing medium to convert killer ammonia, and nitrates to nitrates (For plants) ....Important for fish to live. Ammonia is the big fish killer!!! It is a test model,using a 20 Gallon aquarium,19 fish,and 12 plants. Plants=Miniature variety of Tomato,Lettuce,& herbs. I have it in the window, with a growlight. It uses an airlift 'pump' up to 2 troughs with the plants. -No electricity in water. These troughs are over the aquarium.-Nicely compact. The water flows through the plants, and pours back into the aquarium. People in the third world actually have better systems than this... It's warm there!! Mostly in Asia.Complex synergetic biological relationships have been established and cultivated. Fish,Ducks,bacteria,plants,organic waste. Geodesic will be a great greenhouse shape!!! I look forward to experimenting with it more this summer. -S.M.I.L.E.!!! ----------------Shon "What one believes to be true, either is true, or becomes true within limits to be determined experientially and experimentally. These limits are goals to be transcended. In the province of the mind, there are no limits." -J. Lilly ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:17:54 +1000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "R.K. Treutlein" Subject: Re: Dome Design, Aquaculture & Hydroponics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 22:32 1/04/97 -0800, you wrote: >-From: Shon Lenzo >-..Inside, there would be a pool of water with Tilapia.(= 1 unit) > Where are you located? Keep in mind that Tilapia are illegal in >some states. (They're such tremendous breeders that if they get into a >local strem or lake, they can quickly take over and crowd out all the >native species.) California is one of those states. Be careful not to run >afoul of the local EPA or fish & game wardens. > All that aside, Tilapia are supposed to be one of the better >commercial fishes to grow. They give great output (read: edible parts of >the fish) per unit of input (read: fish food). There's a good article in a >copy of "The Growing Edge" (magazine) from Spring of 1991 on Aquaculture, >and they show a few commercial setups using Tilapia and various hydroponic >plant systems. Some forty odd years ago, in New Guinea, half a dozen tilapia escaped from a demonstration fish culture pond, into the Screw River, which flows down to meet the mighty Sepik River and then flows some 200 odd miles from there, down to the sea. Several years later, people near the mouth of the Sepik found this new variety of fish. It made good eating! Over the years the tilapia spread up the Sepik, displacing most of the native fish. Tilapia don't just eat vegetable matter, they also eat spawn. When I left there, twenty years ago, they were over three quarters of the way up the Sepik, which is some 600 odd miles long. All the lakes and lagoons were chocka block full of tilapia, few of the native varieties survived. The people thought this was pretty good, as they had more fish than ever before to eat. Ecologically though it was a disaster. Be careful they don't get out of the tanks. If you get nothing but small fish, ie they don't appear to be growing, you've got overcrowding in the pond, cull them down. Best of luck with the project, I'd like to try something like that with our barramundi. Rudi Treutlein ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:20:21 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: James Fischer Subject: Tilapia Ecosystem Risk (Not!) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Shon Lenzo said: >>-Inside, there would be a pool of water with Tilapia.(= 1 unit) ...and Rudi Treutlein commented: >>Where are you located? Keep in mind that Tilapia are illegal in >>some states. (They're such tremendous breeders that if they get into a >>local strem or lake, they can quickly take over and crowd out all the >>native species.) California is one of those states. Be careful not to >>run afoul of the local EPA or fish & game wardens. Tilapia is a tropical fish, and require warm water to both grow and reproduce. There is ZERO risk that they could pose any ecosystem risk north of: South Florida Southern Texas Southern California (feral Tilapia are there now!) Europe's carp problem was/is different. Carp can survive and thrive in a wider temperature range. Most of the uninformed laws the "ban" this or that are not based upon facts, but upon misinformed generalizations. Tilapia are an excellent choice, since they have a built-in biological limitation that insures the protection of the local ecosystem. Anyone who was willing to hire a biologist from a local college as an "expert witness" could get the law overturned for all areas except the areas listed above. A much less complex solution would be to locate the fish farm well away from any streams and rivers. (You don't want to build a structure in a flood plain anyway.) Tilapia are poor hikers, and do not perform well in cross-country events. Hit someone on the head with a book. Listen to the "hollow thunk". Books are not hollow. Can there be doubt as to the sound's source? james fischer jfischer@supercollider.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:13:20 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Shon Lenzo Subject: Re: Tilapia Ecosystem Risk (Not!) In-Reply-To: <199704021422.OAA22958@virtuous.inmind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Tilapia is a tropical fish, and require warm water > to both grow and reproduce. > Tilapia are poor hikers, and do not perform well in > cross-country events. Thanks everyone for the response. The Tilapia will be in a Dome based construction greenhouse, in closed system tanks (About 1200 Gallons). I will make sure to supply them with televisions so they are docile and have an 'arti-fish-ial life on the screen, and will not try to run away for any real adventures. Also, I will keep all camping gear and backpacks out of their sight.... -Shon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:11:00 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Ken G. Brown" Subject: Hexagons and Spherical Tilings Comments: To: GEODESIC@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A couple of interesting url's Re: Sperical tilings If you like hexagons: This one has some Bucky stuff plus lots and lots of great links. ___________________________________________________________________ Ken G. Brown, BscEE, PEng. Internet: Syngen Industrial Control Phone: 403.986.1203 Box 3973 Fax: 403.986.5299 Leduc, Alberta, Canada T9E 6M8 ___________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 01:20:08 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: MBatchelor Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Design, 'Honest' Design, and Bucky Another book which would follows this thread is titled "The Evolution of Useful Things". It traces the evolution of many things we take for granted like paperclips and forks. I have a copy at home and can give the complete reference if anyone is intereste. Matt Matthew M. Batchelor (MBatchelor@AOL.Com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:02:14 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: James McCaig Subject: BuckyWorks review. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello BuckyBuffs, Check out the site at: http://www.salon1999.com/sneaks/sneakpeeks960516.html for an interesting book review of BuckyWorks by J. Baldwin. Warm regards, Maharaj James McCaig | Sufi Center of Washington Brotherhood/Sisterhood Representative | Keepers of Sufi Center Bookstore United States | http://guess.worldweb.net/sufi jmccaig@worldweb.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:48:56 GMT+0200 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Venter, Dawie" Organization: Infoplan, Cape Regional Office Subject: Re: Design, 'Honest' Design, and Bucky Hi All I am busy designing (in 3D) a geodesic dome home on a CAD package. At this stage, it is very easy to delete a line, scale the dome up or slip in a basement underneath the structure. I guess that I am at the trade-off phase of the best alternatives in the design process - (referring to an earlier posting of mine). Looking at pictures of a number of dome homes I concluded that most designs have too many extensions jutting out everywhere, i.e. cupolas and super long entry extensions. This detracts a lot from the pure shape of the dome, and I am sure negates many of the positive attributes ascribed to the dome structure, and simply looks awful. (With apologies to any dome home owners). Scaling the dome up to incorporate the floor area previously provided by entry extensions, increases the headroom volume of the dome quite dramatically. However, this headroom area is very difficult to utilise because of the angle of the dome roof, as well as the problem of supporting a floor at this level. It seems the best looking and practical alternative is to avoid utilising the cathedral-like headroom of the dome (for a small dome: 4.5m radius, 3/8 icosa) and place the structure on a full basement in order to obtain adequate floor area. Anybody been through the same design trade-off problems, suggestions? (At this stage I am ignoring the impact of the site (lot) on the design). Dawie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:29:19 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: Re: BuckyWorks review. In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970403110210.0097eb90@worldweb.net> (message from James McCaig on Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:02:14 -0500) -Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:02:14 -0500 -From: James McCaig - -Hello BuckyBuffs, - -Check out the site at: - -http://www.salon1999.com/sneaks/sneakpeeks960516.html - -for an interesting book review of BuckyWorks by J. Baldwin. - -Warm regards, - -Maharaj James McCaig | Sufi Center of Washington -Brotherhood/Sisterhood Representative | Keepers of Sufi Center Bookstore -United States | http://guess.worldweb.net/sufi - jmccaig@worldweb.net - And there's also one at: http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Articles/BuckyWorks.review.final.html Thanks for the pointer, James! -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- "Once you have the knowledge about making something better, and you have the ability to do it, then you have the responsibility." - Sanford Mazel ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 17:55:00 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: Proofs -what good are they? I think some of the problem kids have with rigorous Euclideanism is that meticulous justifications are demanded _on top of_ various definitions accepted on 'blind faith' (as 'rules of the game' -- just to get the ball rolling). Like, we indoctrinate kids in this concept of 'zero dimensional points' with anything drawn or used to symbolize a point not being a 'real' point because 'real' points can't be seen, not even under the microscope. Yet even conceptual points appear to occupy space, and in computer ray-tracing, have definite existence, just like everything else. Then we go on to define lines as 'one dimensional' phenomena made of countless gazillion 'zero dimensional' points, planes as stacks of 'one dimensional lines' and cubes as stacks of planes (well, not cubes exactly, but some abstract infinite expanse we call volume, and then try to suggest is cubical, given our XYZ paradigm of 'three dimensional'). All of this rhetoric contradicts the ray tracing paradigm, wherein relatively planar objects are simply flatter, but not 'infinitely flat' -- and no concept of 'infinity' is required (computer chips don't take well to such an uncomputable concepts). My point is that maybe some kids feel a kind of intuitive hostility to Euclideanism because it begins with this indoctrination in a bunch of unbelievable concepts ('outright garbage', some of the less conformist kids may be thinking), and then goes on to demand all this rigour and step-by-step logic. Seems kind of hypocritical, doesn't it?? All that being said, I'm all for centering geometry around some crystalline logic and fine tuning reasoning skills, cluing kids in to the excitement of discovering new information, based on only some given, plus a sense that the whole makes plenty of sense. Also, I'm not trying to slam Mr. Euclid, just that alternative approaches are available which don't invest so much time indoctrinating kids in what I regard as dispensible aspects of the received wisdom. I mean, lets face it, any curriculum is going to contain a component under the heading of 'mindlessly passed along without question, because this is how we've always done it'. Mathematics, including geometry, is not immune from aggregating a lot of material under this heading, and the new focus on standards provides us with an ideal opportunity to scrutinize 'zero dimensional points' and ask whether we can still justify the space the occupy in the current curriculum. Kirby Curriculum Writer 4D Solutions ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 19:20:21 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Curriculum Strategy Notes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gordon Smith wrote: >Dear Kirby, As a Middle School Science teacher I am open to > the new geometry curriculum via K-12. What applications in the >classroom do you have in mind? Any good resources would be greatly >appreciated. Thank you all for your consideration and interesting group >explorations. Best wishes, Gordon Smith A lot of the material I have in mind is most accessible via my website, starting with http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/intro.html Classroom applications include more hands-on modeling involving a 'concentric hierarchy' of polyhedra, centered around a tetrahedron of unit volume (cube=3 octahedron=4 rhombic-dodeca=6), and sphere packing. The sphere packing links to crystallography (the so-called face-centered cubic packing) and architecture, i.e. to Alexander Graham Bell's early experiments with the octet truss, now commonplace in contemporary structures: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/bell.html http://www.geometrica.com/SpaceFrames.html Classroom applications also include gaining more hands on experience with Java applets, ray tracing programs, VRML and other such internet content, most of it free. But not to the exclusion of modeling with paper, clay, string, straws, metals, woods and other such supplies. In conclusion, here's a course outline I've been circulating. It won't all make sense at first scan (e.g. 'LCD triangles') but most of it is unpacked in some detail at my website. I especially encourage you to check out my 1991 essay "Synergetics in the 1990s: The Invention Behind the Inventions" updated with links and graphics showing how far we've come in the six intervening years (an exponential curve I'd say, suggesting how quickly we're still growing (in an eco-friendly, sustainable way, we pray)). http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/synergetica/synergetica1.html Course Outline Static Networks Euler's Law (V+F=E+2) Descarte's Deficit (720 degrees) Polyvertexia (=polyhedra) ArchiPlatonics Duals Periodic Tables for Polyhedra Intertransformations Concentric Hierarchy Volumes Frequency and Powering Jitterbug Transformation Dynamic Networks Axes of Spin Great Circle Networks Central and Surface Angles Symmetry Families 3,4-fold A & B-mod assemblies 5-fold phi T-mod assemblies LCD triangles Macro & Micro Architecture 3,4-fold crystals octet truss 5-fold quasicrystals fullerenes geodesic domes viral sheaths Thanks for your interest. Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:21:40 -0800 Reply-To: J.W.Rich@xtra.co.nz Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John William Rich Organization: Geodesics NZ Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One of the great problems in teaching maths is language. Often the language is beyond the reading age of the kids being taught, just as some of the abstract concepts are beyond their years. Kirby Urner wrote: > Like, we indoctrinate kids in this concept of > 'zero dimensional points' An example I often use, and I suggest that readers use this with even their adult friends. Question. What is one divided by a half? Ask for an immediate answer to the question. Most people immediately answer " half". Question. How many times does half go into one? Most people immediately answer "two". It's the same question - the difference is the language and concepts conveyed. And because of this, many kids get turned off mathematics, and abandon any thought of their having mathematical ability. Regards John ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 07:07:22 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Parabolic cooker? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit margot@cnwl.igs.net (David) wrote: >GGPX63D@prodigy.com (Tricia Muscato) wrote: > >>Way back when I was in junior high, we constructed a solar cooker in shop >>class. Now I'm a student teacher looking for applications to conic > >I meant to add that I did this once with a class of "non-academic" >pupils. We used cardboard, glue, and tinfoil. It wouldn't boil spit >when finished, but there was a lot of fun and learning that went on >none-the-less, an awareness that would otherwise have been missed >altogether. (I gave the formula for drawing the curve, and the plans.) >We had a cook-out when finished, with a gas BBQ on hand (just in >case.) :-) > >You might be able to use (older) car headlights effectively to some >degree. > >David. > > Doug Wood, CEO of Solar Steam Inc., modified the geodesic dome design to make it parabolic (got a patent for it), thereby getting the triangular facets to focus sunlight on a coil of pipe. His 2-story prototype could be lifted from its face-down position because of a concrete counterweight. The coil would get white hot and water pumped through the coil would emerge as a jet of steam. My friend Andrew Frank found out about Doug and arranged for us to visit (not far from Olympia, Washington -- Doug was also living in a geodesic dome). We inspected his two prototypes and looked at photographs of the hot coil, steam jetting out a hose, but that day was overcast so we didn't get to see the dish in operation (pity). Doug said the dish was made, at least in part, from melted pop cans. He had a whole production process worked out, the details of which I can't remember. The idea was for the production versions to be harnessed into an electricity generating scheme (steam powered generators), perhaps to drive electrolysis (hydrogen production) -- or so is my recollection of our interview. I haven't heard anything about Doug Wood since. All I can track down on the web is an article: Solar Steam, Inc. by John S. Gordon in the Dec 1988 issue of Venturer, the Journal of the Northwest Venture Group (citation only, no text). Doug was living in a paranoid world as I recall, full of oil company execs flying in from all corners of the globe trying to buy the rights to his invention -- so they could shelve it, keep it out of production. He claimed to be involved with some university campuses around some kind of global unveiling. Never heard anything more about it. If anyone out there has further info, I'd appreciate hearing. The more standard solar concentrator is trough-shaped, though still parabolic. See: http://www.chatlink.com/~soltherm/system2.htm Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:59:41 -0800 Reply-To: oregon@ordata.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Oregon Dome Organization: Oregon Dome, Inc. Subject: Re: Design, 'Honest' Design, and Bucky MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Venter, Dawie wrote: > Looking at pictures of a number of dome homes I concluded that most > designs have too many extensions jutting out everywhere, i.e. cupolas > and super long entry extensions. This detracts a lot from the pure > shape of the dome, and I am sure negates many of the positive > attributes ascribed to the dome structure, and simply looks awful. > (With apologies to any dome home owners). You have hit on a big point in dome design. Extensions are essentially square/rectangle construction married to a dome. They add expensive space that subtracts from the efficiency of the dome. They also bring the windows, and consequently the light and views, further away from the interior of the dome, where your living should be done to take advantage of the large open spaces of the dome. We tell design clients that once you have added three extensions, you ought to look at increasing the dome size. You will get more space at an overall lower cost in a 50' dome with no extensions than in a 45' dome with three to five extensions. > Scaling the dome up to incorporate the floor area previously provided > by entry extensions, increases the headroom volume of the dome quite > dramatically. However, this headroom area is very difficult to > utilise because of the angle of the dome roof, as well as the problem > of supporting a floor at this level. It seems the best looking and > practical alternative is to avoid utilising the cathedral-like > headroom of the dome (for a small dome: 4.5m radius, 3/8 icosa) and > place the structure on a full basement in order to obtain adequate > floor area. Anybody been through the same design trade-off problems, > suggestions? (At this stage I am ignoring the impact of the site > (lot) on the design). In this size, we often do put the main floor on a full lower level (essentially an above ground basement). The upper floor is used for living/bedroom space, with windows placed in the natural openings. A 3' riser wall is required to get standard height windows. Minimal or no loft is used, giving each of the rooms full access to the dome geometry. Hope this helps. -- Thanks, Nathan Burke, Oregon Dome, Inc. E-mail: oregon@domes.com Web: http://www.domes.com Address: 3215 Meadow Lane, Eugene OR 97402 Fax: (541) 689-9275 Phone: (800) 572-8943 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 18:11:24 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: BuckyWorks review. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James McCaig wrote: >http://www.salon1999.com/sneaks/sneakpeeks960516.html > >for an interesting book review of BuckyWorks by J. Baldwin. Thanks James! A well done review. It's author has to work hard to overcome presumed reader skepticism that Bucky has anything relevant to offer in this day and age, but succeeds, given Baldwin's timely efforts in this same vein. Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 18:30:07 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Design, 'Honest' Design, and Bucky Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Venter, Dawie" wrote: >Scaling the dome up to incorporate the floor area previously provided >by entry extensions, increases the headroom volume of the dome quite >dramatically. However, this headroom area is very difficult to >utilise because of the angle of the dome roof, as well as the problem >of supporting a floor at this level. Without seeing your CAD plans, I have trouble visualizing exactly what's the problem. I'm no expert on dome architecture, but have paid several visits to the new dome home under construction up on Alameda Flats, not far from where I sit, in Portland, Oregon. Oregon Domes did the drawings and provided the shell. The owner wanted to forego the more typical cylindrical 'drum' around the dome's base, electing instead for just a foot or so of 'skirt' before the vaulting shell takes over. Internally, the structure will have two floors, including the mandatory look-over (i.e. balcony) giving bottom floor viewpoints to the full height of the dome (always impressive). The internals are self-supporting, i.e. do not depend on the shell for compression. The second floor aligns with the first ring of triangles. The owner is thinking of outlining the triangles in trim, but otherwise the internal surface will be dry wall (the roofing is already in place, and leak proof). On the second floor, the curve of the dome is still gentle enough to not give any 'upstairs bedroom' effect (many slope-roofed homes have more severe angling problems than domes in their upper stories). Large triangular windows with hand cranks for ventilation are arranged in a pentagonal pattern, providing pleasing atmospherics. Square windows are also inset in the triangles, but at a slat, suggesting some use of the golden proportion. The design does future some modest juttings on the first floor, but these are not prominent. Also, the apex pentagon has been lifted a few feet to provide a lookout, which gives the dome a bit of a 'fortress with gun turret' appearance. I might have gone for a 'peekabo bubble' at the apex myself, but this would have been more expensive. The first floor is concrete (no basement) and is laced with copper tubing, through which hot water will be pumped, keeping the concrete warm (acts as a passive heat store, and will be cool in summer) -- an old Frank Lloyd Wright trick. This dome may be closer to a spherical model than the domes in your CAD drawings. Where the triangles meet the skirt, they're essentially vertical, so the dome itself is providing a first floor semi vertical wall. Many dome designs cut higher in the curve, and so are dealing with excessive angularity at ground level, which they offset with a drum, our with out-jutting structures. I also liked the suggestion, posted above someplace, that we engineer complete spheres, dig a curved hole in the ground, and essentially 'roll' the home into place (actually, typical 'ground up' construction techniques could prevail, with the 'roll into place' cartoon merely illustrating the principle." This curved compartment could then be filled with concrete or other 'ballast' to anchor the buckyball in place. According to this strategy, first story walls might actaully be bulging gently outward, with maximum diameter attained somewhere on the second level -- a new set of design challenges for which I'm sure our architects will have some creative responses. Kirby Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 23:40:04 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: BuckyWorks review. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > And there's also one at: > >http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Articles/BuckyWorks.review.final.html > > Thanks for the pointer, James! >-- >Pat I've added links to both these reviews to my http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/domeproto.html Note also I'm trying to coordinate an anthology called 'Brainstorming on BuckyWorks' further down on this same page. I came up with some tentative chapter headings and actually wrote Chapter 8 myself (feedback welcome). Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:26:13 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit jtant@nospam.exis.net (jbt) wrote: >world. Where do they learn how? The ancient Greeks thought it was >in the formal geometry. So did Lincoln and many of the Founding >Fathers of this country, who often worked through the Elements on >their own or with a hired tutor. > > John Yes, learning Mr. Euclid's system was critical to those all-American daddy-o's, given the challenges then facing a nascent nation (or one on the verge of complete disintegration, in Lincoln's case). According to Ralph Abraham [1], well-known math prof, chaos expert, and something of an authority on Euclid, the Elements were a formal course of study for gaining entre into the more mystical aspects of reality ala the Pythagorean School, where maybe you'd find some tricks for keeping your government on track. At least that's a view John Dee, advisor to QE1 espoused.[2] If we reconnected our Euclideanism to its mystical roots (using provable history) that might rope in some kids not especially perked by the 'woman mud wrestlers' intro -- though, come to think of it, that _does_ do the trick in junior high, at least for the boys. In the meantime, it falls to my Synergetics on the Web[3] to get a lot of traffic from kids into Robert Anton Wilson and Company[4], many of them your students during the day (rocker rollin' mystic legions by night). If I'm leading them astray, by not harping strongly enough on this or that aspect of the current wisdom, feel free to offer your pointers and criticisms. I'm not trying to monopolize the geometry curriculum or anything, just some days it feels like I'm getting all your best students. Kirby owner-synergetics-l PS: this concludes my series of interconnected postings to k12.ed.math. I've found the conversations engaging, the posts relevant and entertaining. I invite any of those interested in the threads I've started to follow them back to my neck of the woods on the interet, where I have plenty more info and links to talented others with overlapping interests. In case you missed my earlier stuff in this newsgroup and are curious, I recommend searching on 'pdx4d' in DejaNews.[5] NOTES: [1] http://152.175.1.205/NIAbraham.html [2] for more on Dee, see: http://redwood.pacweb.com/rha/professional/courses/math181/math181.S90.html [3] http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/synhome.html [4] my hit logs show a large percentage of browsers finding my site by way of Orbit, an online ezine, attractive to a younger set, where Robert Anton Wilson links have frequently featured (not finding any today though). See http://www.tcp.com/~prime8/Orbit/ [5] http://www.dejanews.com/ ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 22:14:25 -0500 Reply-To: alane@myhouse.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: alane hartley Organization: myhouse communications Subject: Financing for dome homes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am looking for anyone who has received a loan to finance buying or building a dome structure. We have recently been turned down by HUD in our attempt to receive finacing on a fairly new dome home. We were told that a dome structure (a standard kit) was to unusual and not like anything else in that neighborhood, therefore they would not underwrite the loan. I believe we could challenge their decision if we can show evidence of other loans having been granted. I can be contacted at alane@myhouse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 20:04:03 -0800 Reply-To: J.W.Rich@xtra.co.nz Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John William Rich Organization: Geodesics NZ Subject: Re: Design, 'Honest' Design, and Bucky Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Venter, Dawie wrote: > However, this headroom area is very difficult to > utilise because of the angle of the dome roof, as well as the problem > of supporting a floor at this level. It seems the best looking and > practical alternative is to avoid utilising the cathedral-like > headroom of the dome (for a small dome: 4.5m radius, 3/8 icosa) and > place the structure on a full basement in order to obtain adequate > floor area. Anybody been through the same design trade-off problems, > suggestions? (At this stage I am ignoring the impact of the site > (lot) on the design). > > Dawie Hi Dawie, This is why I started considering ellipsoids, super-ellipsoids and corrections such as thew root E correction. It is also why I rotate the domes to have other points as the zenith. Consider a 5/8 3v sphere, say 13m diameter, then squashed so that the zenith is only 7m above the ground floor? Even better, a 4v rotated so that the midpoint between two pent centres is the zenith, you now have quadrant symmetry, and then stretched, squashed and given a superelliptical profile, so that the "walls" stand up straighter. Say 14m x 11m x 7m high. Even greater elegance is produced by a root E correction, making the struts near the zenith longer and the real load bearing struts around the perimeter shorter. Hugh Kenner's book, " Geodesic Math and how to use it" gives the maths, except there is an error in some of that maths which one day I may share with you all. Best regards John Rich ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:27:05 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Brian M. Scott" Organization: Cleveland State University Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 17:55:00 GMT, pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) wrote: [snip] > Yet even conceptual >points appear to occupy space, and in computer >ray-tracing, have definite existence, just like >everything else. I don't see what you're trying to say here. First, I don't see why a conceptual point - I take it that you mean here the abstract, dimensionless entity - should appear to occupy space. I can see regarding it as part of the fabric of some space, or as an address, but not as something that takes up space. And I don't see how any of these views precludes its definite existence. (Yes, Virginia, there is a (1, 2, 3).) >Then we go on to define lines as 'one dimensional' >phenomena made of countless gazillion 'zero dimensional' >points, I hope not; 'infinitely many' is both more accurate and more concise! > planes as stacks of 'one dimensional lines' >and cubes as stacks of planes (well, not cubes >exactly, but some abstract infinite expanse we >call volume, and then try to suggest is cubical, >given our XYZ paradigm of 'three dimensional'). No, we don't *try* to suggest that it's cubical. That's an unintended consequence of the use of rectangular coordinates. If we began with cylindrical coordinates, we'd unintentionally suggest that space was cylindrical. But it seems to me that you're conflating two quite different things here: Euclidean geometry, and Cartesian geometry. A great deal of the former can be done without any notion of dimensionless points, etc. (And if the use of logic is the primary goal, some finite geometries might be a better place to start anyhow, since they *do* permit all sorts of different but understandable interpretations.) As for the latter, one need only take as an axiom that there is a 1-1 correspondence between points and addresses (coordinates) in order to get all of the desired properties. >All of this rhetoric contradicts the ray tracing >paradigm, wherein relatively planar objects are >simply flatter, but not 'infinitely flat' -- and >no concept of 'infinity' is required (computer >chips don't take well to such an uncomputable >concepts). What's the contradiction? All of this is handled within the traditional framework. And no concept of infinity is *required* in order to do traditional geometry. >My point is that maybe some kids feel a kind of >intuitive hostility to Euclideanism because it >begins with this indoctrination in a bunch of >unbelievable concepts ('outright garbage', >some of the less conformist kids may be >thinking), and then goes on to demand all this >rigour and step-by-step logic. Seems kind of >hypocritical, doesn't it?? Not really. We know that these 'unbelievable' concepts are useful, and it is precisely those concepts that are counter-intuitive that demand the most rigor and care in handling in order to avoid error. This itself is a lesson that could usefully be taught. Brian M. Scott ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:37:12 +1000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "R.K. Treutlein" Subject: Re: Tilapia Ecosystem Risk (Not!) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:20 2/04/97 +0000, fisher, very aptly wrote: > Tilapia is a tropical fish, and require warm water > to both grow and reproduce. There is ZERO risk that > they could pose any ecosystem risk north of: A good point, and one I never considered. By the way, the escaped tilapia in my story were being kept in a pond on the Screw Rivers floodplain, by the Agricultural Dept. !!!! Rudi Treutlein ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 08:19:11 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Tilapia Ecosystem Risk (Not!) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >A good point, and one I never considered. By the way, the escaped tilapia >in my story were being kept in a pond on the Screw Rivers floodplain, by >the Agricultural Dept. !!!! Don't you just LOVE to see your tax dollars at work? The earth is populated by Scientists, who practice the art of infallibility, and Non-Scientists, who are taken in by it. James Fischer jfischer@supercollider.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:26:22 GMT+0200 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Venter, Dawie" Organization: Infoplan, Cape Regional Office Subject: Re: Design, 'Honest' Design, and Bucky Nathan Burke, wrote > We tell design clients that once you have added three extensions, you > ought to look at increasing the dome size. You will get more space at > an overall lower cost in a 50' dome with no extensions than in a 45' > dome with three to five extensions. This becomes very apparent when you design your own dome, especially in 3D on a CAD package. > In this size, we often do put the main floor on a full lower level > (essentially an above ground basement). The upper floor is used for > living/bedroom space, with windows placed in the natural openings. A 3' > riser wall is required to get standard height windows. This is the way my design also turned out after a number of trade-off iterations. The structure will be used as a seaside holiday cottage and I have opted for a layout of an open plan kitchen and living area above and two bedrooms and bathroom below in the full lower level. This arrangement suits the 360 degree view of the surrounding area from the top 5 dome openings (sea on the one side and mountains on the other - just beautiful). I will have to provide some form of baffling partitioning in the kitchen area to dampen the sound focusing effect of the domed ceiling. The dome will be supported on 10 concrete pillars, with a concrete slab as the top floor. The dome "riser walls" are provided by short extensions of the pillars which also support the top floor slab. External walls and internal partitioning will be of brick. The dome will be a lightweight moulded fibreglass structure. The only extension I allowed in the design is for a combined entry and staircase to the top level. The extension also turned out to be handy for finding convenient hiding spots for the warm water cylinder, electric switch board and trash storage bin. The design is not complete yet, but I am happy to learn that I was not too far off the mark with my layout. BTW Using fibreglass also allows one to design really sexy curves for dome entry/window opening rooflets, not possible with the straight lines normally provided by timber. Sincerely Dawie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:14:38 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: bill paton Organization: bp ent. Subject: Tensegrity Sculpture/Plant stand Bill Paton, Solutioneer TENSEGRITY SCULPTURE/PLANT OR SPEAKER STAND Requires: 12 Pieces of 1"x1" wood, equal lengths 18--24" long. Cut notches using a chisel or saw as below. Notches are same width as wood (3/4") but roughly 1/4" deep. "B" is in the exact centre of the wood. "A" and "C" are equidistant from the outside, aproximately 1--2" from ends. Make all 12 pieces exactly the same. B C _________________________ ____________ _______ / /|_____/ /______/ /| / _______ / / / / | /_____/| /__________/ / /_________________________/ | | || | |/_____| | | | || | | / | ||_____| | / |______|/ |___________________________________________|/ A CONNECT THE PIECES INTO 3 DIFFERENT SQUARES. __|_______________|__ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | __|_______________|__ | | OVERLAP THE SQUARES AT THE "B" NOTCH, WITH EACH AT A 90 DEGREE ANGLE TO THE OTHER IN 3-D PLANES. PIECES ARE HELD IN PLACE THROUGH TENSEGRITY. |/ /| / | / | / | _|________/_____|_| | / | | | / | | | |/ | | |/| | | | | | | | | | |/ | | | / | | |/| | | /| | | / | _|_|______/_____|_ | | / | | / |/ /| I only drew two squares here. The 3rd is 90 degrees to them. -- Bill Paton --Solutioneer bpaton@inforamp.net THE DIRECTOR'S TEMPLATE http://www.inforamp.net/~bpaton ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:47:59 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. Comments: RFC822 error: Mail origin cannot be determined. Comments: RFC822 error: Original tag data was -> Type Your Full Name Here <@students.wisc.edu> From: Undetermined origin c/o LISTSERV administrator Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Comments: cc: cbleith@students.wisc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello John! I am a student teacher in elementary education. I have taught math concepts to children in grades pk-3 and I would have to agree that language is key to understanding mathematics. The wording and context of a math problem can completely change a child's ability to do the problem. Many early childhood educators advocate CGI Math which focuses on language and processes children use in solving math problems. CGI Math uses language and experiences children can relate to, such as playing ball or eating cookies, and it involves giving the children manipulatives to work with, such as counters, blocks, small chalkboards, or paper and pencil to figure out problems. A child given the same problem twice, but with different wording will often come up with two different answers. Teachers need to constantly reflect on their language use, especially across cultures, because it is often the barrier to a child's understanding. Sincerely, Cara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:00:02 -0700 Reply-To: J.W.Rich@xtra.co.nz Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John William Rich Organization: Geodesics NZ Subject: Re: Design, 'Honest' Design, and Bucky Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Venter, Dawie wrote: > BTW Using fibreglass also allows one to design really sexy curves for > dome entry/window opening rooflets, not possible with the straight > lines normally provided by timber. You can do some pretty sexy curves using plywood if you know what you are doing. With plywood, use the plwood to get your shape and then frame to the plywood rather than trying to frame something and then adding plywood to the frame. Regards John Rich ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:26:39 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: ANNOUNCING NEW MAILING LIST: "domesteading@sculptors.com" Comments: To: technomads@ucsd.edu Comments: cc: domesteading@bootstrap.sculptors.com This was discussed last month, and I think the new list is ready to go. First, a bit of background: ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 08:33:04 -0800 From: Patrick Salsbury To: postmaster@management21.com CC: geodesic@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu, salsbury@bootstrap.sculptors.com In-reply-to: <199703060120.RAA13303@bootstrap.sculptors.com> (LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU) Subject: Re: Domesteading List -From: postmaster@management21.com (Michael Rowland) -To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU -Organization: Management 21 Inc. - -I'd like to put in another plug about a listserv or a newsgroup for -"DomeSteading." - -There are a lot of subjects I'd like to talk about with other readers of this -list that have nothing directly to do with geodesics, but are very intimately -connected with WHY I want to build geodesic structures in the first -place... and they are also connected with a lot of the things that Fuller -was concerned about --- i.e., the whole self-sufficiency issue. I want to talk about composting -toilets and water distillers and wind-powered electrical generators and -materials to build with that don't mildew, and indoor gardening.... These are -things that cry for "dymaxion" solutions, but they aren't necessarily why -other -folks come here. Lots of discussions about composting toilets may not be -welcome by all the readers of this list. - -Is anybody else interested in the idea of a list for the development of -homesteading skills/resources? - -jmr -800-899-0021 voice - Actually, that's the kind of varied discussion that the GEODESIC list was originally meant to house (if you'll excuse the pun ;^) ). We've had all sorts of topics, including floating cities and moon colonies, all centering around the dymaxion ideas of sustainable, self-contained, autonomous structures. I like the "domestading" list idea, and think it would make a good offshoot list. I'm preparing to launch a new series of mailing lists, focussed more specifically on individual issues and projects, and this would be a very good candidate. I need to set up some more disk space and configure the list software, first. I'll make an announcement on GEODESIC when the new lists are ready to go. For now, I'd say that you should feel free to discuss these things on GEODESIC. The issues are definitely "on-topic" and the culture here has grown into a very rich and experienced group of people, so there will be interesting and unexpected contributions. Not everything will interest everybody, but that's what the 'd' key is for. :) Keep up the great discussions! Pat ------- End of forwarded message ------- If you're interested in joining, send a note to 'domesteading-request@sculptors.com' and in the Subject: line, put the word 'subscribe' (or 'unsubscribe', if you want to sign off, or 'help' if you want general help.) All postings should go to 'domesteading@sculptors.com'. The list is private, but subscriptions are open. Only subscribers may post or review the archives (this should protect against spammers) but anyone may join & then post. Hope to see you on the list! Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- "Those who fail do so because they wait for things to happen... Those who succeed do so because they make things happen" ...author unknown ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:21:27 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: aagdii@DDS.NL Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht, (ACCU) Subject: free cost university Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit i am going to be working on my home page. the tentative name is Future UNiversity. since i cant pay to go to stdudy, i am going to open my own. nothing serious, i just want to see how it develps. it may develpe into a cafe for i know. everything is for revigine. new ideas, extrordiany ideas, everything must be rexamined. i have few ideas, but it takes time to add to them. basicaly in the begining i am going to make connection to other wep sites. since i have not much navigated the brain of the internet. i took what i found at hand. so, my first link is to mission earth. and dont misunderstand me, i only used the page were itshow the operating room. i dont want their other links. there is another page where you can view the earth from space, even by writing a name of a city. but first i want to get the whole earth, i dont know the adress. this first part is going to be called training on earth thinking. another part where a article, say about economics mix with future of schools and so on. no more specialization for me. if you think you can come up with extrordinary ideas about creating a free cost University write to me. of course i might be slow at times becuse i am lazy in my action. tagdi free lunch Universe- though i dont like the metaphore are you there Kirby. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:35:35 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: ANNOUNCING NEW MAILING LIST: "domesteading@sculptors.com" Patrick Salsbury writes: [about the "domesteading" list suggestion] > Actually, that's the kind of varied discussion that the GEODESIC > list was originally meant to house... I have to agree with you (even though it was my message you quoted about starting a new list). I read everything that gets posted to this list (except the spams). I like the eclectic nature of it. Subjects like aquaculture, fixing leaky roofs, finding the chord factors for high-frequency geodesics, etc. -- all figure into my own plans, too. I was just worried that folks who are deeply into tensegrity modeling, etc., might not want to read a lot of stuff about composting toilets. I guess the same applies to messages about dome financing, of which there have been a lot lately; I'm not interested in that aspect of dome building at the moment, but I know I will be, so I'm saving such postings to read later. (In fact, I'm archiving everything that comes through this list, hoping to end up with a free-form database of discussions. I'd be glad to make it available as a searchable ASCII text file to anyone who wants/needs it.) I don't necessarily want to split off this list... though I'm gratified that someone else thought it was a worthy idea. I'll gladly read 'em both. jmr ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:10:29 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: free cost university aagdii@DDS.NL writes: > free lunch Universe- though i dont like the metaphore > are you there Kirby. One of my favorite sayings is "TANSTAAFL" -- "There Ain't No Such THing As A Free Lunch" (First came across it reading "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein.) But the implied irony might still make "Free Lunch Universe" a good title/metaphor. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:06:18 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Design, 'Honest' Design, and Bucky John William Rich writes: > With plywood, use the plwood to get your shape and then frame > to the plywood rather than trying to frame something and then adding > plywood to the frame. I'd like to hear more about building this way. I thought it was a neat idea when Bucky overlapped uncut sheets of plywood and fastened them together into a self-supporting dome shell -- no "framing" to speak of. With sheets of fiberglass, you could do this and build a greenhouse with 0% shadow due to framing members. But I wondered how well this would apply to larger structures. jmr ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:28:12 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: Re: free cost university Comments: cc: domesteading@bootstrap.sculptors.com In-Reply-To: <00025B9A.fc@management21.com> (jmr@MANAGEMENT21.COM) -Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic -Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:10:29 CST -Sender: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works" - -From: "J. Michael Rowland" - -aagdii@DDS.NL writes: -> free lunch Universe- though i dont like the metaphore -> are you there Kirby. - -One of my favorite sayings is "TANSTAAFL" -- "There Ain't No Such THing As A -Free Lunch" (First came across it reading "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by -Robert Heinlein.) But the implied irony might still make "Free Lunch -Universe" a good title/metaphor. - I was just thinking about this earlier this morning. Rather than the notion of "freeloading" from the Universe, I like the concept of "offloading" from the current social support-systems like power-grid, water-company, garbage take-away service, etc. It seems that people who move into autonomous-living situations are HELPING the overall systems by removing themselves from it, and thus lightening the load for the rest of the people still tethered to it. The "TANSTAAFL" idea is kind of ironically humorous, but I think it's even MORE humorous that there IS such thing as a free lunch, if you're smart enough to figure out how to harvest the bounty of wealth/food/energy the Universe provides. -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- The spiritual journey is one of continually falling on your face, getting up, brushing yourself off, looking sheepishly at God, and taking another step. -Aurobindo ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:30:42 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > = Brian M. Scott >> = Kirby Urner = Kirby Urner >On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 17:55:00 GMT, pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) >wrote: > >[snip] > >> Yet even conceptual >>points appear to occupy space, and in computer >>ray-tracing, have definite existence, just like >>everything else. > >I don't see what you're trying to say here. First, I don't see why a >conceptual point - I take it that you mean here the abstract, >dimensionless entity - should appear to occupy space. I didn't say 'dimensionless' -- my point isn't. They take up space because they are defined in relation to an observer and have to give some sign of their existence (e.g. reflect light, even just 'conceptual light'). Without such signal, there's no distinguishing 'point' from 'not point'. >regarding it as part of the fabric of some space, or as an address, >but not as something that takes up space. And I don't see how any of >these views precludes its definite existence. (Yes, Virginia, there >is a (1, 2, 3).) > There is if you define them into existence via your faith and practice. But clear, logical geometry doesn't need a 0,1,2,3... dimensional progression. You can start with volume, a space where only objects with insides and outsides exist, and never descend to a hypothetical 'Flatland' wherein we can pretend to have sensory experiences but end up remaining in volumetric space. Even to imagine a point in space, however '0-D' is to imagine your subjective distance (difference) from it, i.e. is to imagine volume. >>Then we go on to define lines as 'one dimensional' >>phenomena made of countless gazillion 'zero dimensional' >>points, > >I hope not; 'infinitely many' is both more accurate and more concise! > Right, 'gazillion' is too vague while 'infinitely many' hits the nail on the head. >> planes as stacks of 'one dimensional lines' >>and cubes as stacks of planes (well, not cubes >>exactly, but some abstract infinite expanse we >>call volume, and then try to suggest is cubical, >>given our XYZ paradigm of 'three dimensional'). > >No, we don't *try* to suggest that it's cubical. That's an unintended >consequence of the use of rectangular coordinates. If we began with >cylindrical coordinates, we'd unintentionally suggest that space was >cylindrical. > Yes, but the confusion is deeper than you suggest, as physics _is_ interested in finding a coordinate system that 'works best' vs others, i.e. the shape of space is a given, not an abstraction left to us humans to define purely out of the blue. >But it seems to me that you're conflating two quite different things >here: Euclidean geometry, and Cartesian geometry. A great deal of the >former can be done without any notion of dimensionless points, etc. True, although it's in the Euclidean-based 10th grade text books that you often find the most harping on points as 'zero dimensional'. I've also showed movies to kids, animated cartoons, hyping the 'zero dimensionality' of points. Our culture seems as anxious to expose kids to this kind of propaganda as to Joe Camel. >(And if the use of logic is the primary goal, some finite geometries >might be a better place to start anyhow, since they *do* permit all >sorts of different but understandable interpretations.) As for the >latter, one need only take as an axiom that there is a 1-1 >correspondence between points and addresses (coordinates) in order to >get all of the desired properties. > Right, which is why 'zero dimensional' is tossable. Might as well have volumetric points with unique addresses and forget about their 'infinite smallness' and other such hand waving. 'Discrete, digital' is more in alignment with physical principles and we have no need to define 'infinitely resolved' just a dense enough voxel space to accommodate all known, measurable phenomena. >>All of this rhetoric contradicts the ray tracing >>paradigm, wherein relatively planar objects are >>simply flatter, but not 'infinitely flat' -- and >>no concept of 'infinity' is required (computer >>chips don't take well to such an uncomputable >>concepts). > >What's the contradiction? All of this is handled within the >traditional framework. And no concept of infinity is *required* in >order to do traditional geometry. > I find traditional geometry as currently taught in the curriculum instills a lot of faith in the 'infinity' concept, which persists for the remainder of ones academic career, clouding ones mind. >>My point is that maybe some kids feel a kind of >>intuitive hostility to Euclideanism because it >>begins with this indoctrination in a bunch of >>unbelievable concepts ('outright garbage', >>some of the less conformist kids may be >>thinking), and then goes on to demand all this >>rigour and step-by-step logic. Seems kind of >>hypocritical, doesn't it?? > >Not really. We know that these 'unbelievable' concepts are useful, >and it is precisely those concepts that are counter-intuitive that >demand the most rigor and care in handling in order to avoid error. >This itself is a lesson that could usefully be taught. > They may be useful, relative to no concepts at all, but may be relatively useless, or downright awkward, compared to other concepts that are more 'with the grain' of actual experience. We have no experience of zero-dimensional points. As you say, we need addressable fixes, loci in space, but this is all doable minus any kow-towing to the dogma of 0,1,2,3 dimensions. I prefer a 'geometry of lumps' wherein everything in so-called 'Euclidean space' has the same dimensional characteristics. Given the tetrahedron is the minimum voxel, the shape with the fewest topological attributes, the minimal box (object with a definite inside/outside), and given its 4 vertices and 4 windows (wire frame view), I'm more inclined to say 'conceptuality begins with 4D' than I am drawn to the dogma of 'space as 3D', as if 'height, width and breadth' were separable components of experience (not!). Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:13:46 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Martin Deen Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kirby Urner wrote: > > > = Brian M. Scott > >> = Kirby Urner > = Kirby Urner > > >On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 17:55:00 GMT, pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) > >wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> Yet even conceptual > >>points appear to occupy space, and in computer > >>ray-tracing, have definite existence, just like > >>everything else. > > > >I don't see what you're trying to say here. First, I don't see why a > >conceptual point - I take it that you mean here the abstract, > >dimensionless entity - should appear to occupy space. > > I didn't say 'dimensionless' -- my point isn't. They take up > space because they are defined in relation to an observer and > have to give some sign of their existence (e.g. reflect light, > even just 'conceptual light'). Without such signal, there's > no distinguishing 'point' from 'not point'. The problem with your view is that it is not in accord with reality. You do not need to be able to reflect light (conceptual or otherwise) off an object to say that it exist. Any fundamental particle (a quark or lepton) can in some sense be thought of as occupying a point, having no volume. Light does not define existance! > >regarding it as part of the fabric of some space, or as an address, > >but not as something that takes up space. And I don't see how any of > >these views precludes its definite existence. (Yes, Virginia, there > >is a (1, 2, 3).) > > > > There is if you define them into existence via your faith and > practice. But clear, logical geometry doesn't need a 0,1,2,3... > dimensional progression. You can start with volume, a space > where only objects with insides and outsides exist, and never > descend to a hypothetical 'Flatland' wherein we can pretend > to have sensory experiences but end up remaining in volumetric > space. Even to imagine a point in space, however '0-D' is to > imagine your subjective distance (difference) from it, i.e. is > to imagine volume. I'd like to see your physics, the one not based on points. I'm also interested in how imagining a distance from a point disproves that points existance. (What is subjective distance? Do you mean distance within your own inertial frame?) > >>Then we go on to define lines as 'one dimensional' > >>phenomena made of countless gazillion 'zero dimensional' > >>points, > > > >I hope not; 'infinitely many' is both more accurate and more concise! > > > > Right, 'gazillion' is too vague while 'infinitely many' hits > the nail on the head. If you discard the concept of infinity as well, your physics will seem even more bizarre > >> planes as stacks of 'one dimensional lines' > >>and cubes as stacks of planes (well, not cubes > >>exactly, but some abstract infinite expanse we > >>call volume, and then try to suggest is cubical, > >>given our XYZ paradigm of 'three dimensional'). > > > >No, we don't *try* to suggest that it's cubical. That's an unintended > >consequence of the use of rectangular coordinates. If we began with > >cylindrical coordinates, we'd unintentionally suggest that space was > >cylindrical. > > > > Yes, but the confusion is deeper than you suggest, as physics _is_ > interested in finding a coordinate system that 'works best' vs others, > i.e. the shape of space is a given, not an abstraction left to us > humans to define purely out of the blue. You are incorrect. Ideally, physicist try not to confuse the mathematical tools they use with the phenomena they are describing. I've never met a physicist who describes the shape of "space" as being cubical. Generally when a physicist describes a shape of space, (s)he is talking about GR, and the shape of space-time. In such discussions, space has a curve or is flat, meaning line converge or diverge in space or stay parrallel, but I've never heard a description that involved a corner. (Except as examples in a class on space-time.) The coordinate system that works best depends on the phenomena not a supposed actual way space is. For some phenomena rectangular coordinates work best, for some cylindrical or spherical, and for some tetrahedral. (Mainly solid state physics for the last.) > >But it seems to me that you're conflating two quite different things > >here: Euclidean geometry, and Cartesian geometry. A great deal of the > >former can be done without any notion of dimensionless points, etc. > > True, although it's in the Euclidean-based 10th grade text books > that you often find the most harping on points as 'zero dimensional'. > I've also showed movies to kids, animated cartoons, hyping the > 'zero dimensionality' of points. Our culture seems as anxious > to expose kids to this kind of propaganda as to Joe Camel. Is the fact that a particular type of mathematics is popular to be used as a strike against it. And your correlation with health endangering habit does not constitute a connection. > >(And if the use of logic is the primary goal, some finite geometries > >might be a better place to start anyhow, since they *do* permit all > >sorts of different but understandable interpretations.) As for the > >latter, one need only take as an axiom that there is a 1-1 > >correspondence between points and addresses (coordinates) in order to > >get all of the desired properties. > > > > Right, which is why 'zero dimensional' is tossable. Might as well > have volumetric points with unique addresses and forget about their > 'infinite smallness' and other such hand waving. 'Discrete, digital' > is more in alignment with physical principles and we have no need > to define 'infinitely resolved' just a dense enough voxel space to > accommodate all known, measurable phenomena. Once again I'd like to see your physics without zero dimensional points. As well I'd like to see the calculus you've developed without infinity. Physics does include zero-dimensional particles as real objects. You've been misled if you think not. > >>All of this rhetoric contradicts the ray tracing > >>paradigm, wherein relatively planar objects are > >>simply flatter, but not 'infinitely flat' -- and > >>no concept of 'infinity' is required (computer > >>chips don't take well to such an uncomputable > >>concepts). > > > >What's the contradiction? All of this is handled within the > >traditional framework. And no concept of infinity is *required* in > >order to do traditional geometry. > > > > I find traditional geometry as currently taught in the curriculum > instills a lot of faith in the 'infinity' concept, which persists > for the remainder of ones academic career, clouding ones mind. I'd like to introduce the idea that the computer that does ray-tracing was designed using the concept of infinity and also of i, another concept I'd guess you might have trouble with. > >>My point is that maybe some kids feel a kind of > >>intuitive hostility to Euclideanism because it > >>begins with this indoctrination in a bunch of > >>unbelievable concepts ('outright garbage', > >>some of the less conformist kids may be > >>thinking), and then goes on to demand all this > >>rigour and step-by-step logic. Seems kind of > >>hypocritical, doesn't it?? > > > >Not really. We know that these 'unbelievable' concepts are useful, > >and it is precisely those concepts that are counter-intuitive that > >demand the most rigor and care in handling in order to avoid error. > >This itself is a lesson that could usefully be taught. > > > > They may be useful, relative to no concepts at all, but may > be relatively useless, or downright awkward, compared to other > concepts that are more 'with the grain' of actual experience. > We have no experience of zero-dimensional points. As you say, > we need addressable fixes, loci in space, but this is all > doable minus any kow-towing to the dogma of 0,1,2,3 dimensions. > I prefer a 'geometry of lumps' wherein everything in so-called > 'Euclidean space' has the same dimensional characteristics. We have no experience of particles as waves, we have no experience of the contraction of time, we have no experience of the curvature of space, we have no experience of tunnelling. Shall we discard all these concepts as well even though they are very useful. Why does every thing in mathematics have to map to some real world experience. Some times it is most instructive to look at concepts that do not appear in the real world. And what do you do about objects that do display the concepts you abhor. What about singularities and quarks, which are non-dimensional and have infinite densities? > Given the tetrahedron is the minimum voxel, the shape with > the fewest topological attributes, the minimal box (object with > a definite inside/outside), and given its 4 vertices and 4 > windows (wire frame view), I'm more inclined to say 'conceptuality > begins with 4D' than I am drawn to the dogma of 'space as 3D', > as if 'height, width and breadth' were separable components > of experience (not!). I'm afraid the value of a 3d system lies not in it basic shape, but in the fact that each axis is mathematically independent of the others. In calculuses which describe a tetrahedral frame, this is not the case, and doing mathematics in such a frame becomes much harder. The tetrahedral frame is certainly not unknown, its used all the time in solid state physics. Its just that it is very difficult to use, that's why you don't see it used more often. -Martin Deen martin@tronco.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:14:09 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: free cost university Hey, Tagdi -- how about calling it "Free Cost Universe-City"? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:44:17 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? > Right, which is why 'zero dimensional' is tossable. Might as well > have volumetric points with unique addresses and forget about their > 'infinite smallness' and other such hand waving. 'Discrete, digital' > is more in alignment with physical principles and we have no need > to define 'infinitely resolved' just a dense enough voxel space to > accommodate all known, measurable phenomena. So we always end up talking about "resolution" (a familiar subject to us desktop publisher types). How many vectors can pass through a given location? If more than one, are they passing through simultaneously? Or are they passing through "adjacent" locations (which brings up the idea of "what resolution are you working at" again, since we have to know how "far apart" two "adjacent" locations are.... I can see why the idea of dimensionless points is so seductive. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:44:37 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Martin Deen writes: [about what physicists mean when they talk about the "shape of space"]: > I've never heard a description that involved a corner. > (Except as examples in a class on space-time.) It seems to me that the point (pardon the pun) of this whole discussion is buried in the second sentence above. Fuller was saying that our conceptualization of the interrelatedness of space/time/linearity/area/volume is basically flawed because of the "abstract" definitions we use, ESPECIALLY when we are "teaching" it (as in, perhaps a "class on space-time"). It also seems to me that a quantum physicist, one who is really striving for an understanding of theory, would be the first to affirm that it is misleading to think in terms of dimensionless points (preferring, rather, quantum "clouds"). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:42:31 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Martin Deen Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? In-Reply-To: <00025E9A.fc@management21.com> from "J. Michael Rowland" at Apr 12, 97 06:44:37 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Martin Deen writes: > [about what physicists mean when they talk about the "shape of space"]: > > I've never heard a description that involved a corner. > > (Except as examples in a class on space-time.) > It seems to me that the point (pardon the pun) of this whole discussion is > buried in the second sentence above. Fuller was saying that our > conceptualization of the interrelatedness of space/time/linearity/area/volume is > basically flawed because of the "abstract" definitions we use, ESPECIALLY when > we are "teaching" it (as in, perhaps a "class on space-time"). It also seems to > me that a quantum physicist, one who is really striving for an understanding of > theory, would be the first to affirm that it is misleading to think in terms of > dimensionless points (preferring, rather, quantum "clouds"). The shape of space and quantum mechanics are two very different beast. One is a product of General Relativity and the other is what's left besides general relativity. I can't comment on what Fuller was trying to say, because I'm not very familiar with his work. But our conceptualization of space-time is just that, a conceptualization. The original article of to which mine was part of a series of responses suggested that a fault exist in the mathematical system we use. I suggest in response that it is very useful, with concepts that model reality very accurately, and that the proposed alternative would not be as useful, because it was more difficult to use. I do not think either model is "real" in an absolute sense. The only "real" model of the universe is the universe itself. But speaking pragmatically, rather than meta-physically, I've yet to see a demonstration of shortcomings in our current mathematic thought which would justify abandoning it. A physicist who studies some area of quantum mechanics would probably tell you it is misleading to think of quantum particles in any sense of something you've experienced macroscopically. But when speaking of elementary particles, it is usually beneficial to think of them as waves, but occasionally necesarry to think of them as points. I've rarely heard the term cloud used to describe quantum phenomena, with the major exception of electrons. The electron being a particle which is often found in a particular locale. I guess the reason I interjected my opinions, is that there was an attack on the usefulness of the concepts of points, infinity, and cartesian geometry. And a suggestion that an alternate system based on tetrahedrons should be taught. Physicist as a group, apply mathematics the most of any group. The physics community is also aware of tetrahedral based geometries and by and large does not make use of them, with the primary exception being solid-state physics. The fact is points, infinity, and cartesian geometry have proven very useful in understanding nature. They were all very important to the development of calculus and physics. Well, that's what I think. I appreciate comments and criticism. The more detailed the better. -Martin Deen martin@tronco.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 13:55:09 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Menu user Organization: University Library Utrecht Subject: Re: free cost university Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit today millions of people in europe, arab countries who live as free loaders. parasites are very specialized, very effeicint and very beautiful. the problem with the system of wealfare today is that is based on guilt. i never seen a county that uses paper more than Holland- it is beyond belief how many forms you have to fill. these people keep clinging to their jobs, but they know that their jobs can go anytime. and that is the fact, so they are in the same way live on the freeloaders. there is 500,000 administrative workers connected to the goverment. i have the number in my book about energy, so i check it. but i remember that the energy industry- that includes nuclear companies recieve 30 billion dollar subside from the goverment of U.S.-socialism from the top. i can check the number tonight. --------------------------------------------------------------- Fuller created a static image of Universe, it reminds me of what i read this morning of Descart, that comes mostly from his geometry. " for many scholars, Descart's mechanism is synonymous with the so-called geometrization of nature-with the denial of activity to bodies. Descarte's assertion to fromondus, for example, that 'my philosphy may seem to "crass"... because, like mechanics, it considers shapes and sizes and motions'has been widely interpreted by Descartes scholars as tantamount to the claim that bodies are inert and utterly berft of activity, powers, forces, and the like. just unconnected fragment from. Picturing knowledge edited by Brian s.Baigrie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:53:48 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Martin Deen wrote: > >The problem with your view is that it is not in accord with reality. >You do not need to be able to reflect light (conceptual or otherwise) >off an object to say that it exist. Any fundamental particle (a quark >or lepton) can in some sense be thought of as occupying a point, having >no volume. Light does not define existance! > You misunderstand my point. Particles are not zero-dimensional in that they register as energy events in our instrumentation. Their very detectability is what makes them different from what the mathematician means by 'zero-dimensional'. >I'd like to see your physics, the one not based on points. I'm also >interested in how imagining a distance from a point disproves that >points existance. (What is subjective distance? Do you mean distance >within your own inertial frame?) > What do you mean by 'not based on points.' I have no problem with points (leptons a good example), just that I don't need them to have zero energy. The mathematicians' zero-D point is conceptual, has no energetic existence. >If you discard the concept of infinity as well, your physics will >seem even more bizarre > I don't think it will be much different in that particular respect. Physics doesn't deal with infinity much, if at all. Energy phenomena are discrete, quantum, digital (no need for 'infinite precision') and our instruments have have a maximum range as well. Our physics takes place within definite limits, in other words. Reality is definite, not infinite. >> Yes, but the confusion is deeper than you suggest, as physics _is_ >> interested in finding a coordinate system that 'works best' vs others, >> i.e. the shape of space is a given, not an abstraction left to us >> humans to define purely out of the blue. > >You are incorrect. Ideally, physicist try not to confuse the >mathematical tools they use with the phenomena they are describing. >I've never met a physicist who describes the shape of "space" as being >cubical. Generally when a physicist describes a shape of space, (s)he >is talking about GR, and the shape of space-time. In such discussions, >space has a curve or is flat, meaning line converge or diverge in space >or stay parrallel, but I've never heard a description that involved a >corner. (Except as examples in a class on space-time.) The coordinate >system that works best depends on the phenomena not a supposed actual >way space is. For some phenomena rectangular coordinates work best, >for some cylindrical or spherical, and for some tetrahedral. (Mainly >solid state physics for the last.) When you write "The coordinate system that works best depends on the phenomena not a supposed actual way space is" you're saying what I was trying to say, maybe less proficiently (I meant 'the space of our phenomena' including their internal logic, call it what you wish). The experiential and experimental data provide input as to what is the most fitting coordination scheme, it's not something we just make up (we actually need the phenomena to inform us). And I agree with you that we can use different addressing schemes with different predefined operations within them, depending on what we're modeling or trying to communicate. >Is the fact that a particular type of mathematics is popular to >be used as a strike against it. And your correlation with health >endangering habit does not constitute a connection. > No, popularity would seem irrelevant, either con or pro. >Once again I'd like to see your physics without zero dimensional >points. The physics we have now can do without them. The "geometry of lumps" phrase I like to use is from an anthology on Einstein and relativity. I'll try to find a reference. I don't think physicists would be sad to give up zero-D points, as long as they could keep all their energy phenomena -- which'd be no problem. >As well I'd like to see the calculus you've developed without infinity. >Physics does include zero-dimensional particles as real objects. You've >been misled if you think not. > I think it depends what you mean by 'zero-dimensional'. The math object called 'point' is not a phenomenon, not an energy thing, not a particle in an accelerator. The math 0D point is a generalization whereas all the things physics is about are special case phenomena, rationalized using mathematics. Once you jump to the generalization, you're no longer dealing with physical objects. Surely this standard knowledge, even within the contemporary curriculum, no? As for whether physics needs infinity, you might give some examples. When you run calculus on a computer, you make your dx something very tiny, but not 1/infinity (computers have floating point registers of definite length -- no place to store 1/infinity in any computer I've ever seen (and by extension, thinking of physical Universe as a giant computer, no place for 1/infinity in it either)). Like, point to an infinity phenomenon please, that I can't consider finite instead. If you think Universe is infinite, I have no reason to argue I suppose, but it seems a definitional matter. For me, Universe is finite. Nothing has changed, as far as my physics is concerned, nor yours either (according to Big Bang theory, Universe is finite as well, so I guess there's probably no argument here, if you're a big banger). > >I'd like to introduce the idea that the computer that does ray-tracing >was designed using the concept of infinity and also of i, another >concept I'd guess you might have trouble with. > I have no problem with complex number games or any other math games that prove there utility (which includes recreational utility, as pure amusements). I can do complex numbers on my computer. I don't see that I have much use for 'infinity'. My calculator doesn't have an 'infinity' button, but is quite able to work with i (actually, complex numbers on my Casio are kinda hard, but Mathcad is up to it). >We have no experience of particles as waves, we have no experience of >the contraction of time, we have no experience of the curvature of space, >we have no experience of tunnelling. Shall we discard all these concepts >as well even though they are very useful. Why does every thing in mathematics >have to map to some real world experience. Some times it is most instructive >to look at concepts that do not appear in the real world. And what do you >do about objects that do display the concepts you abhor. What about >singularities and quarks, which are non-dimensional and have infinite densities? > We have experiments that demonstrate the wave properties of energy streams (particulate in other experiments). We have experimental data about how light beams curve near high gravity objects. We find electron tunnelling talk explains our tunnelling microscopes, makes sense of their behavior and allows us to tweek them, improve performance. These are all concepts wrapped around real experience with experimental apparatus and instrumentation and as such are valid grist for the mill. I don't regard measurable phenomena (instrumentally detectable) as 'non dimensional' by definition. If they register on my photoplate or whatever, they have dimensions. I'm not clear that black holes are 'infinitely dense' versus 'extremely dense'. As far as the experimental data go, why do you need to replace my 'extreme' with your 'infinite'? The 'phenomenological school' is an old one in physics. You may disagree with it, but I won't buy your attempt to paint my views as 'out of bounds' vis-a-vis physics in general. That's very easy to counter, drawing from history. >I'm afraid the value of a 3d system lies not in it basic shape, but in >the fact that each axis is mathematically independent of the others. In >calculuses which describe a tetrahedral frame, this is not the case, and >doing mathematics in such a frame becomes much harder. The tetrahedral >frame is certainly not unknown, its used all the time in solid state >physics. Its just that it is very difficult to use, that's why you don't >see it used more often. > >-Martin Deen >martin@tronco.com Re: coordinate systems and dimensionality, a few points, reiterating from elsewhere: You can skew Cartesian xyz axes to have all the integer address (a,b,c) align with close-packed spheres. Chako coordinates, which label the rays through the vertices of a tetrahedron with 4-tuples (1,0,0,0),(0,1,0,0),(0,0,1,0),(0,0,0,1) assign a unique address to every point in space, just like the Cartesians do. Every address contains at least one zero (sometimes more), and no negative numbers are ever necessary. Various operations, including vector addition, have unambiguous implementations. I add my 4 rays out the corners of a tet to get your xyz vectors. These 4 rays partition space omnisymmetrically into 4 quadrants with the same shape. This is the minimum number of rays that so divide space. XYZ uses 6 rays and divides space into 8 partitions -- is a less economical beginning. The mutual orthogonality of xyz is not important to the property of linear independence. Any 3 vectors from a tetrahedron not in the same triangle will span this same space (you call it 3-space). But given volume is minimally tetrahedral (if you want to supply a primitive box to identify the properties of containment), I always connect the 4 dots defined by your 3 vectors with the complementary 3 vectors (zig + zag), thereby getting back to my primitive 4D tetrahedral beginning. Cantor worked to show that 'number of coordinates used in an addressing scheme' (e.g. 3 in xyz) has no inherent link to the dimensionality of the space so addressed. My use of 4-tuples (and fewer basis rays than xyz, since I'm sticking to non- negatives) to map volume seems a good example here. All that being said, I have no problem using xyz -- I do it all the time. I just don't buy the 0,1,2,3-D nomenclature that comes bundled with it. I can use the technology and dispense with the ideology. Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:58:25 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "J. Michael Rowland" wrote: >> Right, which is why 'zero dimensional' is tossable. Might as well >> have volumetric points with unique addresses and forget about their >> 'infinite smallness' and other such hand waving. 'Discrete, digital' >> is more in alignment with physical principles and we have no need >> to define 'infinitely resolved' just a dense enough voxel space to >> accommodate all known, measurable phenomena. > >So we always end up talking about "resolution" (a familiar subject to us desktop >publisher types). Yes, resolution. Or call it 'frequency'. >How many vectors can pass through a given location? If more than one, are they >passing through simultaneously? Or are they passing through "adjacent" locations >(which brings up the idea of "what resolution are you working at" again, since >we have to know how "far apart" two "adjacent" locations are.... I can see why >the idea of dimensionless points is so seductive. Shall we say only one vector through a location at any one time? But you can shoot bullets through a rotating propellor if the gun is synchronized properly. Very high frequencies approach continuity, or the experience of smoothness. More than 30 frames per second, and the motion seems perfectly fluid. We still have distance, even if our points aren't zero-dimensional. We just don't have the luxury of infinite time to write out their interdistance with infinite precision i.e. 'pi to infinite accuracy.' We don't suppose 'infinite precision' to be necessary to conceptuality. 'Close enough' will do. Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 04:39:55 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) wrote: >Martin Deen wrote: This conversation with Martin re physics and synergetics is continued on Synergetics-L, along with other threads with similar content. To subscribe to Syn-L, or to visit recent postings, check out the official Syn-L home page at: http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/Synergetics-L/synl.html Kirby owner-synergetics-l ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:23:39 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Martin Deen writes: > I've yet to see a demonstration of shortcomings in our > current mathematic thought which would justify abandoning it. Seems to me the inability to come up with a unified field theory is a demonstration of the shortcomings of our current conceptual models. But I don't claim to know enough about this (these) subject(s) to offer a more detailed argument. I will have to read Cosmography several more times before I will even be able to decide whether what Fuller was talking about there even applies to the subject (though I suspect it does). In any case, I don't advocate "abandoning" point/plane geometry; I would like to see it taught as more of a "special case" explanation of the way certain systems work; instead, it's presented as the "ideal" way the universe works, the material world being a sort of "failed version" of the pure intellectual ideal. And I think we are so indoctrinated in the model that it becomes extremely difficult to think in terms of the way the reality behaves. jmr ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:47:36 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Martin Deen Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit J. Michael Rowland wrote: > Seems to me the inability to come up with a unified field theory is a > demonstration of the shortcomings of our current conceptual models. And Newton's inability to come up with relativity was a demonstration of the shortcomings of Calculus. Or the fact the arabs didn't invent special relativity (which requires only algebra) is a demonstration of the shortcomings of algebra. > But I don't claim to know enough about this (these) subject(s) to offer a more > detailed argument. I will have to read Cosmography several more times before I > will even be able to decide whether what Fuller was talking about there even > applies to the subject (though I suspect it does). I'd suggest reading some physics texts as well. > In any case, I don't advocate "abandoning" point/plane geometry; I would like to > see it taught as more of a "special case" explanation of the way certain systems > work; instead, it's presented as the "ideal" way the universe works, the > material world being a sort of "failed version" of the pure intellectual ideal. > And I think we are so indoctrinated in the model that it becomes extremely > difficult to think in terms of the way the reality behaves. The way reality really behaves, which is how? Point/plane geometry describes the way reality really behaves perfectly, except in extreme situations. Lumpy point, tetrahedral co-ordinates describe how crystal look, but is not very useful in describing how they behave. (i.e. piezoelectricity) -Martin Deen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:45:14 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Martin Deen wrote: >I can't comment on what Fuller was trying to say, because I'm not >very familiar with his work. But our conceptualization of space-time >is just that, a conceptualization. The original article of to which >mine was part of a series of responses suggested that a fault exist >in the mathematical system we use. I suggest in response that it is >very useful, with concepts that model reality very accurately, and that >the proposed alternative would not be as useful, because it was more >difficult to use. I do not think either model is "real" in an absolute >sense. The only "real" model of the universe is the universe itself. >But speaking pragmatically, rather than meta-physically, I've yet to >see a demonstration of shortcomings in our current mathematic thought >which would justify abandoning it. > I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm not advocating tossing every useful trick in the book and starting from scratch. I'm suggesting Fuller's work changes the context enough to where we can see keeping all the existing math we like, but not necessarily with the same emphasis on some of the formalisms, which in many cases were superadded by the Ivory Tower long after the original, seed concepts were planted on the front lines, by innovators without so much formal academic training. We can short circuit a lot of the high brow classroom wiring and do more to wire experiment and experience directly to common sense, using Synergetics to wrap around concepts of 'point, line, plane' that kids have long before they learn the convoluted ideological superstructures that pretend to 'underpin' concepts any street kid could tell you about. You can use the XYZ coordinate system without believing in or seeing a need for zero-dimensional points. Quantum physics proceeds without a hiccup, is my contention. >I guess the reason I interjected my opinions, is that there was >an attack on the usefulness of the concepts of points, infinity, >and cartesian geometry. And a suggestion that an alternate system >based on tetrahedrons should be taught. Physicist as a group, apply >mathematics the most of any group. The physics community is also >aware of tetrahedral based geometries and by and large does not >make use of them, with the primary exception being solid-state physics. >The fact is points, infinity, and cartesian geometry have proven very >useful in understanding nature. They were all very important to >the development of calculus and physics. > I understand your point and I agree with most of it. Partly there's the fact that Synergetics appeared in 1975,1979, which is just a fleeting moment ago by historical time-scaling. Although a lot of the information squeezed into those volumes is found elsewhere in the literature, the 'operational mathematics' invented by Bucky is still highly innovative and experimental, but in just a few decades has generated interesting and worthwhile results. Not everyone wants to be a test pilot. We have a working 747 in the hanger and mainstream physics is happy with it. I'm not saying everyone should try to squeeze into an X-15 or something similar and let the 747 rust. That'd be silly and no one would listen to me anyway. I'm just pointing out that synergetics is a new kid on the block worth taking seriously. It contains some polemics against zero-dimensional points and exclusively rectilinear approaches, sure, but all I'm saying here is physics needn't feel threatened thereby, as the phenomena in which it is based aren't going anywhere, and the formalism of 0D was never core-critical to any of its projects anyway. XYZ will remain useful, if for no other reason than we have gazillions of computer programs that expect to use data in this format. As for tetrahedral coordination: sphere packings are useful in crystallography (maybe your 'solid state' includes crystals) and some papers have advanced a notion that the atomic nucleus might usefully be studied with this model (Synergetics suggests that too -- but so have more mainstream academics (sorry, no footnotes this time)). Sphere packings are also at the basis of certain signal multiplexing solutions, about economizing cellular phone resources to carry as many encrypted conversations as possible by maximizing the distance between them in some higher dimensional packing in R^n. Reading my stuff on Syn-L, one might think I had no appreciation for games dealing with n-tuples (so-called higher dimensional Euclidean spaces), but this ain't the case. In fact, right now I'm supposed to be writing SQL to fill a datawarehouse with surgical procedures, and that means uniquely addressing tables with multi-column primary keys -- surgical data hung in a 'higher dimensional space' as mathematicians understand it (but not medical doctors, who have just as much complexity to deal with, but are trained in different formalisms)). My point? Complexity in Universe requires sophistication in our modeling and right now, that means using the best tools we have. Synergetics is not about throwing a monkey wrench into vital machinery. On the other hand, Synergetics is a nugget of potentially useful conceptual tools that may, in time, really help us comprehend a lot of physics. Mostly it sits on a shelf unread because the very few who are paid a comfortable living to access leading edge, experimental approaches are not about to overcome their prejudice against someone writing outside their field having anything of core relevance to contribute. Since Bucky didn't believe in academic compartmentation when it came to writing his masterwork, you have mathematicians, philo- sophers, physicists and literary critics all looking at Synergetics and saying "not my department" -- passing the Bucky, as it were. That's a sad state of affairs in my book, and I don't mind getting all exercised about it and shooting off a lot off text designed to counter it. Whereas it may _look_ like I'm trying to get in the way of people doing their jobs, I'm more looking to recruit more talent for my tiny, exclusive 'Fuller School', realizing its a big world out there and there's no way in hell to make it all revolve around my little wants and needs. If a few high caliber thinkers decide Synergetics is a worth- while area of study and refinement, and see more ways of bridging its content to the mainstream, I'll consider my efforts successful. In the meantime, huge armies of students talking zero-dimensions, infinity and xyz will continue flooding the market, so there's really nothing to worry about from your point of view, is there? >Well, that's what I think. I appreciate comments and criticism. >The more detailed the better. > >-Martin Deen >martin@tronco.com Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:12:07 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: James Fischer Subject: Re: free lunch? Sure there is! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Kirby said: >One of my favorite sayings is "TANSTAAFL" -- "There Ain't No Such >THing As A Free Lunch" (First came across it reading "The Moon Is A >Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein.) But the implied irony might >still make "Free Lunch Universe" a good title/metaphor. Yes there IS such a thing as a free lunch, and sometimes, a free dinner, too! The Buddhist temples (found in nearly any large-to-medium sized US city) have monthly (or weekly) "Feasts", open to all, free to all. There is no pressure, but the intent is to allow others to hear and see their beliefs, as well as their diet (the food is never less than "very good", and often is world-class cuisine). If you simply go, and eat, and talk about general things, you will find some very interesting people, and will never have to hear anyone even MENTION religion. You will be invited back even if you are clear about the fact that you are only there for the food and the conversation. There is an active effort to avoid in-depth discussions of religion on the part of the hosts, since they feel that this is best handled one-on-one. If you make even half a effort, you can even walk out with an invitation to come back and learn how to cook what they make for the next feast, instruction that simply cannot be obtained elsewhere. Many many moons ago when I was a college student, the temple in Boston was one of the few places where I could eat like a king when I was low on cash. I even took dates "out to dinner" at the temple, since it was one of the better places to eat in town. They even had entertainment, in the form of "traditional" song and dance on occasion! What more could you ask for? Get a good look at Comet Hale-Bopp, it won't be back for 3000 - 4000 yrs james fischer jfischer@supercollider.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:29:30 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" amen brother ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:29:31 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" is it possible? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:29:28 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" what have you done? have you built a dome? a power source? a clothing factory? do you never use math? come on ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:19:37 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Menu user Organization: University Library Utrecht Subject: Free-cost University Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian in system mailing list having real problem with other members, basicaly becuse he advocating having totlay different system than capitalism based on free lunch society. for free Universe-cost free would be very enjoyble Universe for me. no credit cards, no paper, no contols, acess to everything. it sound nice. but realy the name of the web page is not decided yet, i thought that if i call it synergetic University would make it good advertisment. my intention is to creat nice learning links, and learning enviroment. if the computer evolve, i would use videos from inspired indivisuals to teach a particular subject. i shall apply some of Fuller stratagy, and see if i can discover some useful others. it seems that fuller was not successful in convying creativity; only hard hit ideas. tagdi ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:03:00 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Martin Deen writes: > The way reality really behaves, which is how? Point/plane geometry > describes the way reality really behaves perfectly, except in extreme > situations. I would call point/plane geometry an extreme situation... it only works in textbooks. It doesn't do much to describe the way forces interact in 3 dimensions. If you want to balance vectors against each other to make a rigid system, you can't do it by connecting them at right angles. Shelves will not stand up without diagonal cross-bracing. THAT is how reality really behaves. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:00:05 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: *SEMI-MONTHLY POSTING* - GEODESIC 'how-to' info ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the semi-monthly "How To" file about the GEODESIC list. It has info on content and purpose of the list, as well as subscription info, posting instructions, etc. It should prove useful to new subscribers, as well as those who are unfamiliar with LISTSERV operations. This message is being posted on Tue Apr 15 00:00:03 PDT 1997. If you are tired of receiving this message twice per month, and are reading bit.listserv.fnord-l through USENET news, then you can enter this subject into your KILL/SCORE file. If you're reading through email, you can set up a filter to delete the message. Both of these tricks are WELL worth learning how to do, if you don't know already. And isn't it about time to learn something new? Isn't it always? :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GEODESIC is a forum for the discussion of the ideas and creations relating to the work of R. Buckminster (Bucky) Fuller. Topics range from geodesic math to world hunger; floating cities to autonoumous housing, and little bit of everything in between. On topic discussion and questions are welcome. SPAM and unsolicited promotions are not. (Simple, eh?) ----------------------- To subscribe, send mail to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SUB GEODESIC When you want to post, send mail to GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU ******NOT***** to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU! LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is for subscriptions, administrivia, archive requests, etc. GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is the actual discussion group. Anything sent to GEODESIC will go to all members. (And you don't want to look like a jerk having everyone see your "SUB GEODESIC John Q. Public" command! ;^) ) This list is also linked to USENET in the group bit.listserv.geodesic If you want to receive copies of everything you send to the list, use the command SET GEODESIC REPRO. If you DON'T want copies, use SET GEODESIC NOREPRO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO SIGN OFF THE LIST: Simply send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SIGNOFF GEODESIC You should receive a confirmation note in the mail when you have been successfully removed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LIST ARCHIVES: - Reference.COM has begun archiving this list as of: Jan. 4, 1997 - Searchable archives for the lists are available at: http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=GEODESIC@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu And of course, Listserv itself is keeping archives of the list, dating back to June, 1992. Send a note to listserv@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu with this message in the BODY of the note: INDEX GEODESIC You can get help on other Listserv commands by putting the line HELP into the body of the note. (Can be in the same message.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (You may want to save this file to forward on to people who are interested, as it tells what the list is about, and how to subscribe and unsubscribe.) Pat _____________________________Think For Yourself______________________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- Don't break the Law...fix it. ;^) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:50:03 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Martin Deen Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit J. Michael Rowland wrote: > > Martin Deen writes: > > The way reality really behaves, which is how? Point/plane geometry > > describes the way reality really behaves perfectly, except in extreme > > situations. > > I would call point/plane geometry an extreme situation... it only works in > textbooks. It doesn't do much to describe the way forces interact in 3 > dimensions. If you want to balance vectors against each other to make a rigid > system, you can't do it by connecting them at right angles. Shelves will not > stand up without diagonal cross-bracing. THAT is how reality really behaves. Yes it does. It does just fine. If you want to find a stable state for a classical system, you right out the diff. eqs. based on a rectilinear co-ordinate system, and they fall right out. And you want to talk about reality, there is no such thing as a rigid system. -Martin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:30:57 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Los angeles, West La group discussion, dinner discussion? 31-824-4038 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" My name is gavin schuette I am a recent grad from UCLa and would like to attend any gruop discussions in my area, westwood and west LA please send me email if you have info or are interested inorganizing such thx ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:48:56 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: Free-cost University Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think Fuller's best ideas are about creativity At 08:19 PM 4/14/97 +0000, you wrote: >Ian in system mailing list having real problem with other members, >basicaly becuse he advocating having totlay different system than >capitalism based on free lunch society. > >for free Universe-cost free would be very enjoyble Universe for >me. no credit cards, no paper, no contols, acess to everything. >it sound nice. > >but realy the name of the web page is not decided yet, i thought >that if i call it synergetic University would make it good advertisment. >my intention is to creat nice learning links, and learning enviroment. >if the computer evolve, i would use videos from inspired indivisuals >to teach a particular subject. i shall apply some of Fuller stratagy, >and see if i can discover some useful others. it seems that fuller >was not successful in convying creativity; only hard hit ideas. > > tagdi > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:48:23 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Martin Deen writes: > you want to talk about reality, there is no such thing as a rigid system I'm willing to assume that's true (while waiting on the geometric proof :-) Some systems are, relative to other systems, pretty stable-looking, though. Before we get pushed too far into seemingly "opposite" arguing positions, I just want to reiterate that I, like Kirby, am not talking about scrapping the utility of the point/plane model. But the more time passes the more I realize that this geometric model is not giving me the conceptual tools I need in order to get an intuitive grasp of a world that does NOT consist of points and planes. And I think this symbolic model is so firmly entrenched in our thinking that it becomes a real obstacle whenever we want to try to jump to a different and, depending on the situation, a more appropriate frame of reference. Instead of hearing a defense of the point/plane system, I would prefer to hear what you think is lacking from any/every other model... or rather what features such a model should include that would make it as useful as point/plane. > If you want to find a stable state for a classical system, > you right out the diff. eqs. based on a rectilinear co-ordinate > system, and they fall right out. (There. Good example. I mean, here I'm talking about dumb ol' bookshelves, and he's finding a stable state for a classical system by writing (or is it righting?) out the differential equations using a rectilinear coordinate system so that they fall right out.... Can there be any doubt in anyone's mind which side of this argument possesses the advantage in terms of sheer neural firepower? I mean, I haven't written (or ritten) out a differential equation since 9th grade math; I probably wouldn't even remember which way to hold it.) If we're through trying to impress each other, here's what I think: I think that the point/plane conceptual model has prevented us from creating other conceptual models that provide a better *intuitive* grasp of systems. I think that if we had such a model we might suddenly find it easy to do things like come up with a unified field theory. I'm intrigued by Bucky's assertion that nature works in whole numbers and that you can do calculations for geodesics using only integers. I'm convinced that the reason geodesics haven't caught on more than they have is because of the public misconception that you have to deal with differential equations and trig functions and irrational fractions in order to build them. The efficiencies demonstrated by such structures demonstrate that overcoming this misconception is not just a parlor game. It was VERY gratifying to me to see the light bulb go on in people's heads after spending an afternoon building the Almostphere and realizing that the math is no more complicated than dividing 10 by 8. I think that the presence of such an alternative model would create an atmosphere of thought in which we would start seeing things like Home Depot carrying pre-cut 2x4's (or 2x2's) in standardized proportionate lengths to make 2- and 3-frequency geodesic structures in people's back yards, with edges beveled for good solid joints and hub plates pre-drilled and triangular plywood sheets in standard sizes (also fiberglass and tefzel); and systems like box-beam, only in triangular cross-section, ready to be bolted together tetrahedrally... etc., etc., etc. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 23:07:56 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Martin Deen Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? In-Reply-To: <000260AB.fc@management21.com> from "J. Michael Rowland" at Apr 15, 97 08:48:23 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Martin Deen writes: > > you want to talk about reality, there is no such thing as a rigid system > I'm willing to assume that's true (while waiting on the geometric proof :-) > Some systems are, relative to other systems, pretty stable-looking, though. > Instead of hearing a defense of the point/plane system, I would prefer to hear > what you think is lacking from any/every other model... or rather what features > such a model should include that would make it as useful as point/plane. > > > If you want to find a stable state for a classical system, > > you right out the diff. eqs. based on a rectilinear co-ordinate > > system, and they fall right out. > > (There. Good example. I mean, here I'm talking about dumb ol' bookshelves, and > he's finding a stable state for a classical system by writing (or is it > righting?) out the differential equations using a rectilinear coordinate system > so that they fall right out.... Can there be any doubt in anyone's mind which > side of this argument possesses the advantage in terms of sheer neural > firepower? I mean, I haven't written (or ritten) out a differential equation > since 9th grade math; I probably wouldn't even remember which way to hold it.) > > If we're through trying to impress each other, here's what I think: I think that Well, I'm certainly impressed. The first time I encounter Differential Equations was in my sophmore year at college studying physics. You mean they studied that in freshman math at your high school? When did you take algebra? Kindergarten? > the point/plane conceptual model has prevented us from creating other conceptual > models that provide a better *intuitive* grasp of systems. I think that if we > had such a model we might suddenly find it easy to do things like come up with a > unified field theory. I'm intrigued by Bucky's assertion that nature works in > whole numbers and that you can do calculations for geodesics using only > integers. I'm convinced that the reason geodesics haven't caught on more than > they have is because of the public misconception that you have to deal with > differential equations and trig functions and irrational fractions in order to > build them. The efficiencies demonstrated by such structures demonstrate that > overcoming this misconception is not just a parlor game. It was VERY gratifying > to me to see the light bulb go on in people's heads after spending an afternoon > building the Almostphere and realizing that the math is no more complicated than > dividing 10 by 8. I think that the presence of such an alternative model would > create an atmosphere of thought in which we would start seeing things like Home > Depot carrying pre-cut 2x4's (or 2x2's) in standardized proportionate lengths to > make 2- and 3-frequency geodesic structures in people's back yards, with edges > beveled for good solid joints and hub plates pre-drilled and triangular plywood > sheets in standard sizes (also fiberglass and tefzel); and systems like > box-beam, only in triangular cross-section, ready to be bolted together > tetrahedrally... etc., etc., etc. I'm all for alternate math. If it works, then use it. But I don't find the inherent limits that you say my coordinate system has. I can find stable states for a bookshelf and prove it rigorously. I can also see it in my head without the need for any equations. When you say geodesic, you mean geodesic dome, right? As opposed to the absolute concept of a geodesic. I, too, am intrigued by Bucky's assertation, but in my mind its little more. (But certainly nothing less) The reason I have strong feelings about such things is it is very disheartening to see people treat physics like it was a parlor game. When you do, people think that someone like Deepak Chopra has some great ideas. That can be dangerous to peoples health. I certainly think that Fuller had lots of fascinating ideas and is very under-studied. I also believe that his ideas about society, government, and economics are very important to continued survival. (Given for instance that a recent statement signed by 90 Nobel laureates in various sciences predicts the cataclysmic collapse of the ecosphere within one human lifetime.) -Martin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 05:27:30 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Martin Deen wrote: >J. Michael Rowland wrote: > >> Seems to me the inability to come up with a unified field theory is a >> demonstration of the shortcomings of our current conceptual models. > >And Newton's inability to come up with relativity was a demonstration of >the >shortcomings of Calculus. Or the fact the arabs didn't invent special >relativity >(which requires only algebra) is a demonstration of the shortcomings of >algebra. > Don't forget about experimental data. Relativity Theory had a lot to do with measuring the speed of light in various directions relative to an 'aether' that was supposed to serve as the cosmic backdrop. Minus actual corroborating experimental data, concoctions using whatever math symbolisms are of no relevance, to Arabs, Newton or anyone else (except maybe to mathematicians, who thrive on the prefrequency formalisms, empty of energetic content). >> But I don't claim to know enough about this (these) subject(s) to offer a more >> detailed argument. I will have to read Cosmography several more times before I >> will even be able to decide whether what Fuller was talking about there even >> applies to the subject (though I suspect it does). > >I'd suggest reading some physics texts as well. > Cosmography contains quite a bit of physics BTW (e.g it goes on for pages about how a gyroscope works, trying to give an intuitive explanation for 'precession' -- in terms other than the standard vector mechanics). But yes, I agree with Martin, your syllabus should draw from a broad spectrum of sources. >> In any case, I don't advocate "abandoning" point/plane geometry; I would like >> to see it taught as more of a "special case" explanation of the way certain >> systems work; instead, it's presented as the "ideal" way the universe works, the >> material world being a sort of "failed version" of the pure intellectual >> ideal. And I think we are so indoctrinated in the model that it becomes extremely >> difficult to think in terms of the way the reality behaves. > This is what I want to get away from, that material phenomena are a 'failed version' of anything. On the contrary, I'd like to go the other direction and see how far we can get with concepts that hold true to what we actually experience, versus 'idealizing' at every turn to come up with some Platonic universe of formalisms that then becomes the 'standard' next to which every- thing we've ever experienced becomes 'imperfect'. That's too much the old 'fallen world' mythos, which I can recycle, but not necessarily in this context. That being said, I'm willing to have concepts that represent ideal static conditions (e.g. a snap shot of an 'ideal gas', with every molecule equidistant from every other in that moment) that we never actually experience. I'm not for throwing out useful, imaginable models just because they're 'idealized'. Fuller links Avogadro's ideal gas to his Isotropic Vector Matrix (IVM) model, freely admitting that the IVM is only found in aberrational form in special case (e.g. supermarket orange packings and 'brass monkey' civil war cannon ball stackings).[1] So it's a fine line I guess, steering a course between 'too formalized' on the one hand, and 'too informal' on the other. The notion of 'phase space' comes to mind, and the concept of 'life at the edge of chaos' -- an optimized computing environment, a mixed economy balancing freedoms with constraints.[2] This links to Fuller's notion of 'phases' in Synergetics, which he explicitly links to Gibbs, inventor of the Phase Rule (which, combined with Euler's Law, forms one conceptual beginning for Synergetics -- not that it has only one 'front door').[3] >The way reality really behaves, which is how? Point/plane geometry >describes the way reality really behaves perfectly, except in extreme >situations. Lumpy point, tetrahedral co-ordinates describe how crystal >look, but is not very useful in describing how they behave. >(i.e. piezoelectricity) > >-Martin Deen The Synergetics Dictionary does have a reference to piezo-crystals and piezo-electricity which points to Quantum Mechanics: Minimum Geometrical Fourness [4]. I'll have to check it out one day (soon maybe) and see if I agree with you. In the meantime, I don't think dwelling on points as 0-D (standard curriculum) versus points as 4D (synergetics) is a very productive thread, since although you grasp the former (as do I, was paid to teach about them in fact) but haven't a clue about the latter. Kirby NOTES: [1] E.g. see Synergetics 2 #986.120 [2] Roger Lewin, Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos (Macmillan, 1992). [3] E.g. see Synergetics 2 #1054.20 [4] http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/synhome.html [5] Synergetics Dictionary, compiled and edited by E.J. Applewhite (Garland Publishing, 1986), volume 3, pg.287, card 8. ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:30:39 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Menu user Organization: University Library Utrecht Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Martin Deen wrote: >J. Michael Rowland wrote: > >> Seems to me the inability to come up with a unified field theory is a >> demonstration of the shortcomings of our current conceptual models. > >And Newton's inability to come up with relativity was a demonstration of >the >shortcomings of Calculus. Or the fact the arabs didn't invent special >relativity >(which requires only algebra) is a demonstration of the shortcomings of >algebra. > Don't forget about experimental data. Relativity Theory had a lot to do with measuring the speed of light in various directions relative to an 'aether' that was supposed to serve as the cosmic backdrop. Minus actual corroborating experimental data, concoctions using whatever math symbolisms are of no relevance, to Arabs, Newton or anyone else (except maybe to mathematicians, who thrive on the prefrequency formalisms, empty of energetic content). elaborate work to correspond synergetic to theoritical physics, but i see here good injection in the right place to demonstrate the necassity for experiemntal evidence. are you saying that the Arabs held to experiemntal mathematics, or physics. >> But I don't claim to know enough about this (these) subject(s) to offer a more >> detailed argument. I will have to read Cosmography several more times before I >> will even be able to decide whether what Fuller was talking about there even >> applies to the subject (though I suspect it does). > >I'd suggest reading some physics texts as well. > Cosmography contains quite a bit of physics BTW (e.g it goes on for pages about how a gyroscope works, trying to give an intuitive explanation for 'precession' -- in terms other than the standard vector mechanics). But yes, I agree with Martin, your syllabus should draw from a broad spectrum of sources. did you know that Kepler wrote a book titled cosmology.. >> In any case, I don't advocate "abandoning" point/plane geometry; I would like >> to see it taught as more of a "special case" explanation of the way certain >> systems work; instead, it's presented as the "ideal" way the universe works, the >> material world being a sort of "failed version" of the pure intellectual >> ideal. And I think we are so indoctrinated in the model that it becomes extremely >> difficult to think in terms of the way the reality behaves. > This is what I want to get away from, that material phenomena are a 'failed version' of anything. On the contrary, I'd like to go the other direction and see how far we can get with concepts that hold true to what we actually experience, versus 'idealizing' at every turn to come up with some Platonic universe of formalisms that then becomes the 'standard' next to which every- thing we've ever experienced becomes 'imperfect'. That's too much the old 'fallen world' mythos, which I can recycle, but not necessarily in this context. That being said, I'm willing to have concepts that represent ideal static conditions (e.g. a snap shot of an 'ideal gas', with every molecule equidistant from every other in that moment) that we never actually experience. I'm not for throwing out useful, imaginable models just because they're 'idealized'. --- the idealized condition of gases formulas came from experiments of actual gases- chemisty is more rooted in experments and testing. but of course math has infiltrated bothe physics and chemistry. Fuller links Avogadro's ideal gas to his Isotropic Vector Matrix (IVM) model, freely admitting that the IVM is only found in aberrational form in special case (e.g. supermarket orange packings and 'brass monkey' civil war cannon ball stackings).[1] they find the number of atoms in a mole and using X rays. that is another experimental confirmation.it seems that there is very little to know about that law except its very basic idea. So it's a fine line I guess, steering a course between 'too formalized' on the one hand, and 'too informal' on the other. The notion of 'phase space' comes to mind, and the concept of 'life at the edge of chaos' -- an optimized computing environment, a mixed economy balancing freedoms with constraints.[2] This links to Fuller's notion of 'phases' in Synergetics, which he explicitly links to Gibbs, inventor of the Phase Rule (which, combined with Euler's Law, forms one conceptual beginning for Synergetics -- not that it has only one 'front door').[3] physics and chemistry texts are also full of noise for generalized perspective to emerge. >The way reality really behaves, which is how? Point/plane geometry >describes the way reality really behaves perfectly, except in extreme >situations. Lumpy point, tetrahedral co-ordinates describe how crystal >look, but is not very useful in describing how they behave. >(i.e. piezoelectricity) i dont know if i understand your point, but i dont think that point plane geometry explains reality perfectly- how can that. anyway it seems to hold rality in static frame. tagdi ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 22:01:12 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Menu user Organization: University Library Utrecht Subject: creativity, bankers, geocities sort of University for everyone-free cost-free tuition-no administration Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit fuller was creative, but due to the large areas he covered and the way he wrote made it less inhancing to light reflectiona and discovery, he was an old fashioned i guess. ------------------------------------------------------------------- urgent reading( i find kirby to be ahead in his reading, i wonder if he is ahead in this case): http:www.webbindustries.com/spotlight/f_fr_art001.html 10 pages about bankers in the USA, similiar senarios that fuller talk about when the wall street dealers confisicated the land from the farmers in the depression, except in this case they areing confisicating the whole of america. tagdi p.s i only lately cought your Univers- city..... so i wrote this against the squares of the city. there the square was ingrediant of ethics. it was once a means that inspired reniasance formal estatics in 200 years time the square shatered the clarity of victorian morality in the district of Soho, and led to the disintegrattion of visible reality. later on in the east coast of america born a man by the name of Fuller the minister who demolished the postulate of this unstructured square, rome home to dome in paronamic view around the sun in tetrvision universe-city. sorry it is just blabla, no education what so ever, but it is funny. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:57:41 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: creativity, bankers, geocities sort of University for everyone-free cost-free tuition-no administration Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" please no blather, no chitchat bs!!, gooddd At 10:01 PM 4/16/97 +0000, you wrote: >fuller was creative, but due to the large areas he covered and >the way he wrote made it less inhancing to light reflectiona and >discovery, he was an old fashioned i guess. >------------------------------------------------------------------- >urgent reading( i find kirby to be ahead in his reading, i wonder >if he is ahead in this case): > > http:www.webbindustries.com/spotlight/f_fr_art001.html > 10 pages about bankers in the USA, similiar senarios > that fuller talk about when the wall street dealers confisicated >the land from the farmers in the depression, except in this case > they areing confisicating the whole of america. > > tagdi > > p.s i only lately cought your Univers- city..... > so i wrote this against the squares of the city. > > there the square was ingrediant of > ethics. > it was once a means that > inspired reniasance formal estatics > in 200 years time > the square shatered the clarity > of victorian morality in the > district of Soho, > and led to the disintegrattion of > visible reality. > later on in the east coast of > america born a man by the > name of Fuller the minister > who demolished the > postulate of this unstructured > square, rome home to dome in > paronamic view around the sun > in tetrvision universe-city. > > sorry it is just blabla, no education > what so ever, but it is funny. > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:54:54 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: Re: creativity, bankers, geocities sort of University for everyone-free cost-free tuition-no administration In-Reply-To: <33554C28.4116@ubu.ruu.nl> (message from Menu user on Wed, 16 Apr 1997 22:01:12 +0000) Tagdi writes: - p.s i only lately cought your Univers- city..... - so i wrote this against the squares of the city. That's funny, I've actually been thinking of naming one of the early floating cities "UniverCity" and making it into a giant, global University for advanced research. Saw your posts on this earlier, Tagdi, and haven't had a chance to reply. Details on the floating city concept are at: http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Oceana/ -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- The only smart thing to do is to get smarter. -- Timothy Leary, The Intelligence Agents ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:35:29 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: bill paton Organization: bp ent. Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? In article <000260AB.fc@management21.com>, "J. Michael Rowland" wrote: It was VERY gratifying > to me to see the light bulb go on in people's heads after spending an afternoon > building the Almostphere and realizing that the math is no more complicated than > dividing 10 by 8. I think that the presence of such an alternative model would > create an atmosphere of thought in which we would start seeing things like Home > Depot carrying pre-cut 2x4's (or 2x2's) in standardized proportionate lengths to > make 2- and 3-frequency geodesic structures in people's back yards, with edges > beveled for good solid joints and hub plates pre-drilled and triangular plywood > sheets in standard sizes (also fiberglass and tefzel); and systems like > box-beam, only in triangular cross-section, ready to be bolted together > tetrahedrally... etc., etc., etc. As Fuller said; "Don't reform man, reform man's environment". I would be very curious to see a proposed entire system using this setup that you talk about. In box beaming (which I have posted detailed notes about) they talk about how to modify existing wood and whatnot. i would like to see a "complete building package proposal" using both a) existing supplies and ther modifications and b) an idealized system working right from scratch. Because I have very little experience in this type of work, it would prove very enlightening to me. Or if you can direct me to a useful practical source for this information I would appreciate this as well. Bill Paton, Solutioneer. -- Bill Paton --Solutioneer bpaton@inforamp.net THE DIRECTOR'S TEMPLATE http://www.inforamp.net/~bpaton ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:09:45 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "J. Michael Rowland" wrote: >unified field theory. I'm intrigued by Bucky's assertion that nature works in >whole numbers and that you can do calculations for geodesics using only >integers. I'm convinced that the reason geodesics haven't caught on more than >they have is because of the public misconception that you have to deal with >differential equations and trig functions and irrational fractions in order to >build them. I'm not sure we have the same view of Bucky's assertions. Synergetics looks at trig functions and logs. His specs for his A and B mods have 2nd roots 'n stuff. I personally don't go around telling people that if you're into Synergetics you can toss your calculator and never again deal in decimals. Rick Bono's DOME program uses floating point registers to develop POV-Ray and VRML output files (among others). I'm not aware of any approach that gives us high frequency icosa- spheres without a lot of significant digits. Sure, you can multiply everything to the right of the decimal by a big enough number to do away rid of fractions, but that's just a rescaling, a change in frequency. So maybe that's what you're saying, that very high frequency systems get nature into a corner using only whole numbers. If so, then maybe I'll go along. But back to dome designing and CAD programming: you're going to want those decimal points! Fuller's assertion that nature isn't working with irrational constants like pi, to my way of thinking connects to the fact that we can work with definite quantities, on computers for example. Computers are energy economies, just like natural ecosystems are energy economies, so it makes some sense to think the 'definite word length' approach applies both inside and outside our silicon circuitry. The suggestion is that physical quantities and energies aren't 'precise to infinite digits' as if there were no upper limit to our system's resolution -- or nature's. That being said, there's plenty of room for precision. For example, you'll find Bucky is interested in the number 0.99943332 on pg 253 of Synergetics 2 (the diameter of a rhombic triacontahedron of ~5.000000 tetravolumes). Whether one is attacking Synergetics or arguing with an eye towards increasing its relevance (i.e. working harder to tune it in, as I am, and as you are), I think it's important to be clear, accurate and precise regarding its content. That doesn't mean much in Synergetics isn't somewhat hazy and difficult to grasp (so too in much of science) -- all the more reason to find our points in common, the things we _can_ be clear about. Note: I'm not advancing this as a disagreement with what you've stated, merely as a clarification and enjoinder to myself to hold to high standards of transparency wherever possible -- Universe is murky enough as it is without me clouding it further with yet more obscure text (we've already got plenty of folks trafficing in that stuff!). Kirby 4D Solutions ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:45:04 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? bill paton writes: > a "complete building package proposal" using both > a) existing supplies and ther modifications and > b) an idealized system working right from scratch. That's an interesting idea. One of the neat things about boxbeam is the way different sized beams nest inside one another, making it easy to build telescoping members. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 00:17:36 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: Shrink-wrap domes Comments: To: amkalenak@webtv.net Comments: cc: domesteading@sculptors.com In-Reply-To: <199704142118.OAA19434@mailtod-103.bryant.webtv.net> (amkalenak@webtv.net) -Resent-From: domesteading@sculptors.com -Precedence: list -From: amkalenak@webtv.net (anthony kalenak) -Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:18:43 -0500 - -I am glad to see this list. - I have been working on the simplest - most ephemeral geodesic dome I -can derive from "common" materials. -I have a 40' dia. (five freq.) tubular dome frame in my backyard. My -current design efforts are directed toward finding an effective yet -simple enclosure system. -The design criteria I've set for this system is: simplicity, weather -proof, a taut/smooth surface, environmentally stabile (ie will not -degrade rapidly), common materials, and inexpensive. I see the final -form of this dome as a realization of Fullers Weather-Break designs. -Any suggestions would be appreciated. - -Tony Kalenak - I've been thinking of this, recently, as we're discussing building a greenhouse in our back yard. When I lived in Buffalo, NY a few years ago, it got very cold in the winter. (The stories you've heard are probably true! ;^) ) And so most of the people in Buffalo and the Northern Reaches would get a plastic shrink-wrap material that came in large sheets. Usually from the 3M corporation. This stuff was very thin, but provided a wonderful draft-guard, which helped you conserve quite a bit of heat. (Especially since at least a couple of the windows in our old house were single-pane glass!) You applied it with 2-sided tape around your window-frames inside, then used a hair dryer to apply heat. The plastic would shrink and tighten, providing you with a transparent, taut, film with an insulating air-layer between it and the window. How does this pertain to domes? I was considering trying to either purchase or make a gigantic, semi-spherical "bag" of this material, to fluff & drape over a geodesic framework. Then, fasten down the edges, put a space-heater inside the dome, and the bag just shrinks to fit, nice & tight over the frame. The stuff wouldn't be durable over multiple seasons, most likely, but would make for a very neat, ultra-light "gossamer" structure, and if it was truly that easy to apply, you could just do a new one each spring. Now the trick is just to make it into that bag, or see if 3M has anything like that in stock already which might be adapted... -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." -Oscar Wilde ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 02:15:48 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: Proofs - what good are they? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" cool At 02:45 PM 4/17/97 CST, you wrote: >bill paton writes: >> a "complete building package proposal" using both >> a) existing supplies and ther modifications and >> b) an idealized system working right from scratch. > >That's an interesting idea. > >One of the neat things about boxbeam is the way different sized beams nest >inside one another, making it easy to build telescoping members. > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:41:23 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Vinay Gupta Subject: Re: Shrink-wrap domes There's a material which comes in rolls about a foot wide, for use in packaging: it's like super tough cling film, but tacky on one side so it adheres to itself. I'd imagine that if one spiraled up from the bottom of a small dome one would get a fairly durable lapped surface. However, the interior would be tacky, which is less than ideal - either a second coat of the tacky stuff from the inside, or dusting with something like talcum powder might help..... still seems like a quick-fix type of approach. A better bet might be a parachute treated with something like Thompson's Waterseal (or better, the one of the AFM water sealing products :-) ). Cloth treated in Thompons can be shocked in cold water before it dries, remains flexible, and is fairly water resistent. We're not talking goretex here, but it's worth a thought. vinay Vinay Gupta Worldview Livingspace ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 00:50:06 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Ralph Henderson Subject: Re: Shrink-wrap domes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Patrick Salsbury wrote: > How does this pertain to domes? I was considering trying to either > purchase or make a gigantic, semi-spherical "bag" of this material, to > fluff & drape over a geodesic framework. Then, fasten down the edges, put a > space-heater inside the dome, and the bag just shrinks to fit, nice & tight > over the frame. The stuff wouldn't be durable over multiple seasons, most > likely, but would make for a very neat, ultra-light "gossamer" structure, > and if it was truly that easy to apply, you could just do a new one each > spring. > > Now the trick is just to make it into that bag, or see if 3M has > anything like that in stock already which might be adapted... > > Pat > I like this. On a similar idea, would anyone have experience on how to minimize water leakage when a geodesic dome is built using 1x2s to make triangles, then covered with shrink wrap individually, (stapled to inside edge of 1x2s) and each triangle screwed or bolted together. The 1x2s ripped to correct angle for a tight fit. Marine tape? calking? 2 sided tape? anything better? How large could a dome be built safley, using 1x2s in the above maner (approx 1m strut length) and plastic? I live outside of Toronto, so snow load and wind are a concern. Ralph ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:14:02 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Menu user Organization: University Library Utrecht Subject: Re: creativity, bankers, Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Patrick, you are in Berkely right. realy i dont know that much, i just dont know how fuller got his materials. high f of turning to mixing of subjects, but may be the libraries here in Holland are frustrating. but anway, how about suggesting a floating city to Japan. you know when you tell the japanes the world is spherical they say ok, when you tell that to the west; they say no the world is flat. tagdi dont hold back- what does it mean this comment meant to evoke some reaction for personal help: i thought about not sending it but if it does evoke a reaction it might well mean somthing to the person. patric: i like to know your attitude, way of learning anything you can contribute. every one keeps secret- sort of following and not being critical, everyone want points you might say. i am talking in general here no binning down, but perhaps there is only one way to talk, only one way to keep the discourse going by .... eliminating the other. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:45:43 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: creativity, bankers, Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:14 PM 4/19/97 +0000, you wrote: >Patrick, > >you are in Berkely right. realy i dont know that much, i just dont >know how fuller got his materials. high f of turning to mixing of >subjects, but may be the libraries here in Holland are frustrating. > >but anway, how about suggesting a floating city to Japan. >you know when you tell the japanes the world is spherical >they say ok, when you tell that to the west; they say >no the world is flat. > >tagdi >dont hold back- what does it mean >this comment meant to evoke some reaction for personal help: >i thought about not sending it but if it does evoke a reaction >it might well mean somthing to the person. >patric: >i like to know your attitude, way of learning anything you >can contribute. every one keeps secret- sort of following >and not being critical, everyone want points you might say. >i am talking in general here no binning down, but perhaps there >is only one way to talk, only one way to keep the discourse >going by .... eliminating the other. > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:41:57 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: [ega@fastlane.net: Dome web] Comments: To: domesteading@bootstrap.sculptors.com Got this reference to a site with MANY dome-related links. Worth checking out... Pat ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Return-Path: ega@fastlane.net From: "Ernie Aiken" To: Subject: Dome web Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 02:06:12 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was reading from the geodesic BBS. Did you know that Monolithic Domes in Italy, Tx. makes domes by using a giant ballon, inflated with air a foam is then sprayed on the interior and it hardens into an inside shell. Next spray on cement is applied to the outside and if I remember right, rebar is inside it for a steel reinforcement. The final product is a smooth round dome. Some more at http://www.now.net/worlddomes/ Also some roofing information you can find searching for "gardnerasphalt" Finally I do my own domes and sell woven poly too for the domes or whatever, translucent 10 mil (standard) 10' x ? You can see these at a non-profit org I help support, http://www.applink.net/cpollard/wildlifemin.htm ------- End of forwarded message ------- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 20:55:12 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Official Archive Copy: re Synergetics and 4D Geometry Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit [Thank you to the University of Buffalo for providing an excellent Listserv archiving service in URLspace for bit.listserv.geodesic, to which this archive copy was originally posted -- KU] ===================================================== POSTING TO SCI.MATH APRIL 20, 1997 BY KIRBY URNER Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain undeniable facts? [1] I have been led to the former position through examination of an alternative, cohesive set of concepts which replaces '3-D' with 4D (but not '3-D + time'). The upshot is not that 'Euclidean space is not 3-D' but that 'Euclidean space may be considered 4D just as well' and in some curricula, already defined in some detail, we may choose to move in this direction. [2] Relevant inputs: 'Flatland' supposes we can agree on perceptual interpretations of 'seeing in 2-D' (two dimensions) but can we? Can you visualize a line segment minus the space around it or does 'line' complement 'not line' in such a way that 'volume' is inevitably present? Clearly I consider these questions somewhat rhetorical: our perceptions are firmly rooted in our concept of Euclidean space and the concept of avolumetric visualizations is oxymoronic. Suppose we consider Euclidean space (in the sense of volumetric containment) 'ground zero' or the commonsense perceptual beginning for geometric conceptualization. Do we absolutely require concepts of 2-D, 1-D or 0-D? Note that flat surfaces, thin lines, and fixes or positions, may require a finely grained space wherein our measurements have high precision -- but must we demand 'infinite precision' (whatever that might mean) even where reality does not? Here is where convention enters the picture: we can decide to go with our real world experience and permit points, lines and planes to be volumetric objects with the same dimensional characteristics as cubes or other polyhedra. This suggestion for a 'geometry of lumps' wherein all objects occupy volume, is not new. [3] Where this gets us so far is: Euclidean space is 3-D and we have no need for any conceptual spaces with fewer dimensions. In fact, the notion that we can subtract 'height' from 'width and breadth' is problematic: 'height, width and breadth' are all codefinitional concepts and there is no perceptual demonstration for 'removing one of these dimensions while leaving the others'. So now we're in 3-D space with no definitional apparatus for 'counting backward' (...2,1,0) to lower dimensions. We have the points, lines and planes we need for Euclidean geometry, but with the stipulation that a plane, for example, is 'thin enough' but not necessarily 'infinitely thin'. In fact, we have established a definitional basis for a geometry that dispenses with either infinity or 1/infinity as essential components -- but that's for another posting. But why this number 3? Why say '3-D' if we have no way of counting up from 0-D? Starting fresh, with volume, with the concept of containment, we ask ourselves what are the primitive hallmarks of volume, of Euclidean space (what we've hitherto been trained to call '3-D space')? We have containers, the possibility of being contained. What is the simplest container? If we limit our primitive definitions of topological features to edges, vertices and openings (i.e. 'wireframes') then clearly the tetrahedron is the simplest shape defining inside from outside. The tetrahedron is the 'simplest box' or 'object' and we might consider points, lines and planes to be relative distortions of the regular tetrahedron (primitive object). In this definitional space, a 'sphere' is actually a chordal network (perhaps spinning), a geodesic sphere or wireframe with a huge number of edges, i.e. is not conceptually primitive relative to the 4-windowed, 4-cornered, 6-edged tetrahedron. Given the primitive 4ness of the simplest container, and given our experience of Euclidean space is one of containment and containers, we agree to consider this space '4D'. Other relevant inputs: Note that 4 rays from a tetrahedron's center out through its vertices sections space into 4 regions, all equivalently defined by 3 edges. XYZ space uses 6 rays to section space into 8 regions: (+,+,+) (-,+,+) (+,-,+) (+,+,-) (+,-,-) (-,+,-) (-,-,+) (-,-,-) Plus/minus xyz rays bisect the mid-edges of a tetrahedron, so we call them 'e-rays' (edge-rays). The 4 vectors through the vertices are 'v-rays' (vertex rays). If we notate v-rays as: (1,0,0,0) (0,1,0,0) (0,0,1,0) (0,0,0,1) [3] then our four regions may be designated: (+,+,+,0) (+,0,+,+) (+,+,0,+) (+,+,+,0) In other words, no negative numbers are needed, and we have fewer regions. Vector addition is defined, as is a 1-1 mapping to Cartesian coordinates. This is _not_ to suggest replacing XYZ, merely to demonstrate that XYZ may be easily defined relative to our 4D tetrahedron, as the set of e-rays, and a complementary set of v-rays with their own notational conventions, and its own economies (one more coordinate, but no need for negatives and fewer regions) is likewise anchored in Euclidean space. The point here is to decouple 'number of coordinates used' from our primitive dimension concept, recognizing that many addressing conventions may be developed vis-a-vis volume, the Cartesian one of many. Georg Cantor showed R^3 could be addressed sequentially and computer programs for manipulating 3-D objects map all Cartesian (or other) addresses into a linear storage space (RAM). IE the 3-tuple aspect is a less conceptually primitive aspect of Euclidean space (volume) than the fact that the tetrahedron is 4-cornered, 4-faceted, 6-edged. This point is made to further pry apart our notion that 3-tuple addressing ala Descartes is in anyway a rationale for insisting that space is 3-D. In fact, 3-D addressing depends simply on reading position from _any_ 3 non-coplanar rods, which need not share an origin nor be mutually orthogonal. The tetrahedron provides such 3-rod zig-zags ('open triangles'), but always as complementary pairs. That XYZ is impelled to a 6-vector apparatus (plus-minus x y and z) to map space symmetrically (versus simply 3 mutually orthogonal vectors as at the corner of a cube), is related to the primitive 6-edge economy of the minimum volume, the tetrahedron, the opposite mid-edges of which are bisected by the 3 plus-minus axes used in Cartesian conceptuality. The new focus on the tetrahedron as a primitive anchor for our concept of dimensionality, of 'volume' is welcome for other reasons, including the simplifications it brings to volumetric accounting vis-a-vis other polyhedra: Table of Volumes Polyhedron Edge Volume Tetrahedron 1 1 Coupler * 1 Cube face diagonal=1 3 Octahedron 1 4 Rhombic long face diag=1 6 dodecahedron ** Cuboctahedron 1 20 MITE *** 0.125 * irregular octahedral space-filler (=8 MITEs) ** space-filler, voronoi cell for spheres in cpp (fcc) *** MITE= MInimum TEtrahedron -- irregular tetrahedral spacefiller (Coxeter 'Regular Polytopes' pg 71 consisting of A and B modules as per Fuller, Synergetcs 950.12, pg 533) [5] Much simpler for kids to get into polyhedral geometry (usually given short shrift in 10th grade etc.) with this simple, whole number approach, plus immediate links to sphere packing and (by axial spinning) to the unifying concepts of Symmetry. [6][7] ======================= Notes: [1] "Herman Hankel, Richard Dedekind, and Karl Weierstrass all believed that mathematics is a human creation.... And Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951, a student of Russell and an authority in his own right, believed that the mathematician is an inventor not a discoverer... The Nobel prize-winning physicist Percy W. Bridgman, in The Logic of Modern Physics (1946), rejected flatly any objective world of mathematics. "It is the merest truism, evident at once to unsophisticated observation, that mathematics is a human invention." Theoretical science is a game of mathematical make-believe. All these men contend that mathematics is not only man-made, but very much influenced by the cultures in which it is developed. >From Morris Kline *, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (Oxford University Press, 1980), pp 324-25 * Morris Kline, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University (17 yr old info as per book) [2] RBF = R. Buckminster Fuller EJA = E.J. Applewhite RBF/EJA Synergetics: explorations in the geometry of thinking. Macmillan Publishing Co., 1975. ISBN 0-02-065320-4 or ISBN 0-02-541870-X (v.1) Q295.F84 RBF/EJA Synergetics 2, Macmillan Publishing Co., 199 ISBN 0-02-541880-7 (v.2) Q295.F84 (includes index to both volumes) [3] "Helmhotz strongly objected to the assumption of the a priori nature of Euclidean geometry. Space, as a pure form of intuition, leads, according to Helmholtz, to one single conclusion: that all objects of the external world must necessarily be endowed with spatial extension. The geometric character of the extension, however, was in his view, purely a matter of experience. Helmholtz's opinion, imbued with the recognition of the validity of non-Euclidean geometry, may on the whole still be taken today as representative of the attitude of architect's toward Kant's doctrine of space." From: http://koenig.njit.edu/ec_info/image1/text_files/geom_1j.html by Barry Jackson (NJIT) [4] David Chako suggested these conventions to our Synergetics-L list* this year, as a part of his broader interests (overlapped with Peter Kitchen) in random walks. For more on 'Chako coordinates' see: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/turtle.html http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/pascal.html * Synergetics-L: http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/Synergetics-L/synl.html [5] Graphical version of Concentric Hierarchy (graphic by Richard Hawkins) at http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/intro.html [6] E.g. see: Symmetry: A Unifying Concept, by Istvan & Magdolna Hargittai http://www.shelterpub.com/_symmetry/symmetry.html [7] Example course outline by Kirby Urner, 4D Solutions: Design Science 101 Static Networks Euler's Law (V+F=E+2) Descarte's Deficit (720 degrees) Polyvertexia (=polyhedra) ArchiPlatonics Duals Periodic Tables for Polyhedra Intertransformations Concentric Hierarchy Volumes Frequency and Powering Jitterbug Transformation Rotating Networks Axes of Spin Great Circle Networks Central and Surface Angles Symmetry Families 3,4-fold A & B-mod assemblies 5-fold phi T-mod assemblies LCD triangles Macro & Micro Architecture 3,4-fold crystals octet truss 5-fold quasicrystals fullerenes geodesic domes viral sheaths ================================ Kirby Urner pdx4d@teleport.com ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:20:57 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Robert Conroy Subject: Official Archive Copy: re Synergetics and 4D Geometry Kirby, You wrote: <> Hasslberger writes an interesting piece on how 3-D is not in fact 3-D but 6-D when your negative directions are considered. He points out that a Tetra Space co-ordinates can indeed do the work of the 6-D Eclidean system using only 4-D. Personally I haven't used a tetra-space co-ordinate system to even comment on whether it is a better system, but looking at nature, I would think both fall short. Hasslbergers' URL: http://www.agora.stm.it.k.gordon/phy_6.htm Bob ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 13:39:21 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: aagdii Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht, (ACCU) Subject: Re: Official Archive Copy: re Synergetics and 4D Geometry Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit i think some messages get lost in the way. red somthing about probablity of message being lost in Norber weiner book long time ago. -------------------------------------------------------- in 1995 number of cars in industrialized countries reached 600 million, and in the rest of the world 100 million. in 1970 the last was only 20 million. 7 billion tons of CO2 discharged in the atmospher. refrence: Power Surge ------------------------------------------------------------------ tagdi ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:16:39 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: aagdii Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht, (ACCU) Subject: Re: Shrink-wrap domes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit *any realy new books or web pages about old and new material, also advances written in general and not specialized way. i remember hearing that the space suit is 10 layers and cost 6 million dollars. the last layer is teflon- incredible material, stronger than steel. *also related, the Russan statation Mire had problem with its toilet. the resycling system was broken. is this the same or similar system that fuller talked about. *artitects will take over from politician in planning for the future, wrote Fuller in 1963. at the moment politician get excited for the rong reasons- they dont understand acceleration, bunch of bim...also anyone who serve them like the media women and men. tagdi tagdi ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:06:39 +1000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "R.K. Treutlein" Subject: Re: [ega@fastlane.net: Dome web] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I was reading from the geodesic BBS. Did you know that Monolithic Domes in >Italy, Tx. makes domes by using a giant ballon, inflated with air a foam is >then sprayed on the interior and it hardens into an inside shell. Next >spray on cement is applied to the outside and if I remember right, rebar is >inside it for a steel reinforcement. The final product is a smooth round >dome. Some more at http://www.now.net/worlddomes/ Some years ago, an Italian company built a whole shopping center, what you americans call a Mall, this way. Here in Queensland, Australia. Two or three domes. I think it was called "Space City". Unfortunately it never caught on, possibly it was mis-sited, posiblyt conservative business people could not take the shape. Eventually it was left derelict, became a haunt for teen gangs and streetkids and was bulldozed. I had a look around it just before it was completely closed down. A very sad sight. At the same time a car agency (Ford??) built a dome a few klicks away, that's still in exisitence. Rudi Treutlein ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 22:37:54 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: April Hechter Subject: Fwd: Connectives, etc Hello all, This is off the BAMBOO list: scrap fiberglass sources. Seems that this might be of interest to some of the dome people. URL = http://www.msmisp.com/fiberglass/ --------------------- Forwarded message: From: dadadata@friend.ly.net (Craig O'Donnell) Sender: Maiser@housing.ucsc.edu To: bamboo@housing.ucsc.edu (Internet Bamboo Group) Date: 97-04-18 19:00:30 EDT Scrounging on the Net I found a place called the Fiberglass Scrap Pile. (URL to follow). They have a print "newsletter" which covers their specials. They have lots of fiberglass structural shapes for sale, some at very cheap prices. I bring this up in case anyone wants to experiment with bamboo structures and is interested in fiberglass (which is easily epoxied) as a material for connectives or other structural parts. There is a shipping charge of $10 per order. Contact them at: Appalachian Plastics Box 1044, Glade Spring VA 24340 540-429-2581 Fax: 540-429-2631 "Grab Bag" $5.00 for a 20 lb bag of assorted shapes less than 2 feet long. Shapes - typically available any length up to 20 feet, some longer Item ..... Size (in) ..... Cents Per Foot Changle (angle with small lip) 1-1/8 x 1-1/2 10 cents Tool Handle (1 meter) 1.25 in dia pipe 25 cents each (four meters for $1) Box Beam 4 x 4 square section 50 cents Cheap Channel 3-5/16 x 1-/16 10 cents Skinny Tube 0.9 in x 0.72 ID 10 Another Skinny 1 in x 0.75 in ID 10 Hollow Beam 3 x 3 square section 1.00 (very heavy duty) Mini-Box Beam 1 x 1 sq section 35 cents Channel 1-1/8 x 3-1/8 10 cents Large Angle 1.5 x 1.5 in 25 cents ---- etc --- you get the idea. They say to call them if you want anything at all, they may have it. You maybe be able to cobble up "standardized" pin and socket joints or some other thing. Angle would work as a simple "fish" or reinforcement for lashing bamboo culms end-to-end. Craig O'Donnell The Proa FAQ _____________________________________________________________________________ -- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist -- Macintosh kinda guy -- I sure miss my cat, Wanda. _____________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 22:03:26 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Elmer Fittery Organization: Preferred Software Consultants Inc. Subject: FS: Pioneer Geodesic Dome parts Comments: To: WOODWORK@VMB.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit About 8 years ago I bought the metal connecting parts and the precut base plates so I could build a geodesic dome. The plan was to put the 3/8 geodesic dome on a 4' riser wall. Anyhow, I live in Lancaster, CA and at 51 don't relish the idea of spending the next 5 years worth of saturdays and sundays building my retirement home in the mountains. I will sell everything for $3,000. this is $2,000 less than I paid for it 8 years ago. Please note, building the dome is a lot of work so beware! If interested email me at: elmerf@qnet.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 01:48:36 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: TonyaHarding@VERYFINE.COM Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Subject: If you only knew! Ever had a message so important you just had to tell the world? Well, this is one of those messages. It's about "SUBMITKING", one of the best resources I've found for promoting a website. The URL is http://www.submitking.com and they'll submit your URL to 100 marketing resources (like Yahoo, Altavista,Lycos, Excite, etc.) for just $10US and you just fill out one form and press one button! Tell them TonyaHarding sent you! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:00:46 -0700 Reply-To: oregon@ordata.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Oregon Dome Organization: Oregon Dome, Inc. Subject: Re: FS: Pioneer Geodesic Dome parts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From Oregon Dome: Just for clarification, our "pioneer" domes are not a hub and strut system. We build only panelized geodesic domes that can be raised to a framed and sheathed shell (including all exterior walls where doors and windows are placed) in a single weekend, not at all similar to the system described below. Elmer Fittery wrote: > > About 8 years ago I bought the metal connecting parts > and the precut base plates so I could build a geodesic > dome. The plan was to put the 3/8 geodesic dome on > a 4' riser wall. > > Anyhow, I live in Lancaster, CA and at 51 don't relish the > idea of spending the next 5 years worth of saturdays and > sundays building my retirement home in the mountains. > > I will sell everything for $3,000. this is $2,000 less than I > paid for it 8 years ago. > > Please note, building the dome is a lot of work so beware! > > If interested email me at: > > elmerf@qnet.com -- Thanks, Nathan Burke, Oregon Dome, Inc. E-mail: oregon@domes.com Web: http://www.domes.com Address: 3215 Meadow Lane, Eugene OR 97402 Fax: (541) 689-9275 Phone: (800) 572-8943 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:11:09 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Official Archive Copy: re Synergetics and 4D Geometry Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Conroy wrote: >Kirby, >You wrote: ><'Euclidean space may be considered 4D just as well' and in >some curricula, already defined in some detail, we may choose >to move in this direction. [2]>> > >Hasslberger writes an interesting piece on how 3-D is not in fact 3-D but >6-D when your negative directions are considered. He points out that a >Tetra Space co-ordinates can indeed do the work of the 6-D Eclidean system >using only 4-D. Personally I haven't used a tetra-space co-ordinate system >to even comment on whether it is a better system, but looking at nature, I >would think both fall short. Hasslbergers' URL: >http://www.agora.stm.it.k.gordon/phy_6.htm > >Bob Yes, I am aware of Hasslberger's web page, wrote to him about the work being done using v-rays on Synergetics-L in fact (no reply though). The suggestion that the tetrahedron's edges suggest a 6-D nomenclature, it's vertices a 4-D nomenclature, is already embedded in Synergetics. Note that my representation of Euclidean space as 4D has nothing to do with coordinates at the primitive level -- more I argue that coodinates need have nothing primitive to do with our concept of dimension. I would also suggest this approach is consistent with synergetics. Kirby ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:28:53 -0700 Reply-To: J.W.Rich@xtra.co.nz Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John William Rich Organization: Geodesics NZ Subject: Re: [ega@fastlane.net: Dome web] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit R.K. Treutlein wrote: > > >I was reading from the geodesic BBS. Did you know that Monolithic Domes in > >Italy, Tx. makes domes by using a giant ballon, inflated with air a foam is > >then sprayed on the interior and it hardens into an inside shell. Next > >spray on cement is applied to the outside and if I remember right, rebar is > >inside it for a steel reinforcement. The final product is a smooth round > >dome. Some more at http://www.now.net/worlddomes/ > > Some years ago, an Italian company built a whole shopping center, what you > americans call a Mall, this way. Here in Queensland, Australia. Two or three > domes. I think it was called "Space City". Unfortunately it never caught on, > possibly it was mis-sited, posiblyt conservative business people could not > take the shape. Eventually it was left derelict, became a haunt for teen > gangs and streetkids and was bulldozed. I had a look around it just before > it was completely closed down. A very sad sight. > > At the same time a car agency (Ford??) built a dome a few klicks away, > that's still in exisitence. > > Rudi Treutlein There were some domes built in Australia by this method, called Binishells. Some of them started to collapse - I remember a school building where they believed that lightning had fused the wire reinforcing and this lead to the disintegeration of the concrete. In the meantime my preference and belief sticks with timber domes. I believe you can build a larger dome using timber than any other material on strength to weight ratio grounds. Regards John Rich ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 05:02:36 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain undeniable facts? Comments: To: SCIMATH@SUPERPRISM.NET Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > = Questioner = Kirby Urner > I just wanted to point out what I saw as afew flaws in your > new basis. > (1) Where is your origin? Space has no boundry, but yours > would have one. There would be no way to put all of 3-space > into your "new" 4 space. This is just a little problem. > Thanks for taking the time to consider the information. Responses have been few and far between (not that sci.math is the best place to plant such tidbits, given its frantic pace and scatter gun nature (I'm not really relying on sci.math to propagate synergetics in other words)). I regard the concept of 'space' as logically more primitive than that of establishing a conceptual apparatus of 'city streets' (rectilinear or otherwise -- i.e. a grid) used for point-addressing and motion-mechanical manipulation. In other words, Euclid, for whom Euclidean space is named, had no concept of Cartesism, R^3, nor the formalisms that go with it, including 'origin' (which didn't keep him from labeling vertexes A, B and C after drawing a triangle in the sand with a stick, and doing lots of logical moves). This coordinate system stuff comes later, with the invention of analytic geometry and its convergence with algebra, and later with matrix notation (evolutions in data structures in my book, intimately tied in with developments in typography, which made new 'gizmos', like indexed addressing, easier to propagate). My signing of an alternative, yet logically coherent usage pattern, surrounding this 'dimension' concept comes earlier (both logically and in a chronological sense). The v-ray coordinate system stuff is offered more as a footnote in this context, is not included in the initial presentation of my argument, which more rests on a bias against 'zero dimensional' objects, or infinitessimals (1/infinity)[1]. >(2) I assume that one would use (0,0,0,0) as the additive identity >for addition. If so, then where is the additive inverse, -a, for >any vector a in your space. When I reread your definition, I did >not even see the possibility of the existence of such an element. >Without -a, your space is not a "vector space," which means that >we lose a great deal of information about it. In fact, it is not >even a group. There is very little that we could say about this >structure. I cited two web pages giving more details on the mechanics of so-called v-ray coordinates (using the four rays emanating from a tetrahedron's center and emerging through its vertices). [2] Every vector has another unique vector pointing oppositely, the coordinates of which may be given using only positive numbers.[3] Consider the vector (1,0,0,0) -- a basis ray pointing away from the origin. Its negative is (-1,0,0,0) but by simplification, this becomes (0,1,1,1), which is indeed the vector of equal length pointing in the opposite direction. >Both are big problems. Your idea is not a logical generalization >of the concept of space. Usually, one thinks of space as radiating >out in all directions infinitly. Your space does not do this. Also, >addition, although it is well defined, has no inverse. This is a big >problem. Subtraction (The addition of a number to a negative number) >is very useful in mathematics. > The problems you identify do not come across as problems on my end. The 4 vectors radiate omnisymmetrically through space as far as you want to extend them (certainly I can expand to include whatever the XYZ folks want to include -- even if I don't formalize a concept of 'infinity' in so doing). Because 4 positive axes take care of allspace, every vector has a positive address, but we can still 'subtract' in the sense of adding vectors that take us in any direction we like, including closer to the origin. Think of a 'quadpod' a rocket designed with 4 thrusters pointing from a center in these 4 omnisymmetric directions. Through programming of exhaust ratios, I can move my 'origin' through space so as to connect any two points by a shortest path (geodesic). Now think of a 'hexapod', a rocked designed with 6 thrusters pointing to the corners of an octahedron (equivalently the mid- edges of a tetrahedron). This 'origin' is likewise vectorable (by addition of thrusts) omnidirectionally. However, it looks overbuilt and redundant in some ways, deploying thrusters to directly counter others at 180 degrees. The quadpod evidences greater economy. Both are adept at navigating conceptual, Euclidean (volumetric) space, which, again, I maintain predates XYZ and your fixation of a vector mathematics as primitive to our notion of 'dimension' -- those formalisms came later, and pieces of my posted argument are about prying them further apart, so we can make the addressing machinery and the dimensionality more logically distinct. Kirby [1] a bias with a long history in mathematics, going at least back to Bishop Berkeley's skepticism about the foundations of the calculus (without denying its relevance or utility -- a separate issue (my own emphasis on a discrete mathematics built around our newly gained experience with digital computers would be more congenial to Berkeley's views I think, and likewise presents no barriers to continuing with all the calculus algorithms). (note to scholars: I'd put Fuller's concerns about the 720 irreducibility vis-a-vis the supposed epsilon-delta demo of 360-degrees around each vertex at the limit of an icosasphere as frequency->infinite in the same tradition as Berkeley's doubts and concerns around the conceptual basis of the calculus) [2] http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/turtle.html http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/pascal.html Also relevant: http://www.agora.stm.it.k.gordon/phy_6.htm [3] BTW, (0,0,0,0) is an additive identity but so is (1,1,1,1) or any (n,n,n,n), but we have defined 'simple form' (akin to 'simplified fractions') which reduce all vectors to a single, unambiguous address (i.e. (0,0,0,0) = (1,1,1,1) in the same sense that 2/3 = 4/6). David Chako and Peter Kitchin, original pioneers of these new conventions, have played with using non- simple forms to register a temporal component. I'm not getting into that here. ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:19:10 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain undeniable facts? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" wat hav u bilt? don't read ayn rand 'for the new intellectual' and think about it At 05:02 AM 4/24/97 GMT, you wrote: >> = Questioner > = Kirby Urner > >> I just wanted to point out what I saw as afew flaws in your >> new basis. >> (1) Where is your origin? Space has no boundry, but yours >> would have one. There would be no way to put all of 3-space >> into your "new" 4 space. This is just a little problem. >> > >Thanks for taking the time to consider the information. Responses >have been few and far between (not that sci.math is the best place >to plant such tidbits, given its frantic pace and scatter gun >nature (I'm not really relying on sci.math to propagate synergetics >in other words)). > >I regard the concept of 'space' as logically more primitive than >that of establishing a conceptual apparatus of 'city streets' >(rectilinear or otherwise -- i.e. a grid) used for point-addressing >and motion-mechanical manipulation. > >In other words, Euclid, for whom Euclidean space is named, had no >concept of Cartesism, R^3, nor the formalisms that go with it, >including 'origin' (which didn't keep him from labeling vertexes >A, B and C after drawing a triangle in the sand with a stick, >and doing lots of logical moves). > >This coordinate system stuff comes later, with the invention of >analytic geometry and its convergence with algebra, and later >with matrix notation (evolutions in data structures in my book, >intimately tied in with developments in typography, which >made new 'gizmos', like indexed addressing, easier to propagate). > >My signing of an alternative, yet logically coherent usage >pattern, surrounding this 'dimension' concept comes earlier >(both logically and in a chronological sense). The v-ray >coordinate system stuff is offered more as a footnote in this >context, is not included in the initial presentation of my >argument, which more rests on a bias against 'zero dimensional' >objects, or infinitessimals (1/infinity)[1]. > >>(2) I assume that one would use (0,0,0,0) as the additive identity >>for addition. If so, then where is the additive inverse, -a, for >>any vector a in your space. When I reread your definition, I did >>not even see the possibility of the existence of such an element. >>Without -a, your space is not a "vector space," which means that >>we lose a great deal of information about it. In fact, it is not >>even a group. There is very little that we could say about this >>structure. > >I cited two web pages giving more details on the mechanics of >so-called v-ray coordinates (using the four rays emanating from >a tetrahedron's center and emerging through its vertices). [2] > >Every vector has another unique vector pointing oppositely, >the coordinates of which may be given using only positive >numbers.[3] > >Consider the vector (1,0,0,0) -- a basis ray pointing away >from the origin. Its negative is (-1,0,0,0) but by simplification, >this becomes (0,1,1,1), which is indeed the vector of equal >length pointing in the opposite direction. > >>Both are big problems. Your idea is not a logical generalization >>of the concept of space. Usually, one thinks of space as radiating >>out in all directions infinitly. Your space does not do this. Also, >>addition, although it is well defined, has no inverse. This is a big >>problem. Subtraction (The addition of a number to a negative number) >>is very useful in mathematics. >> > >The problems you identify do not come across as problems on my end. >The 4 vectors radiate omnisymmetrically through space as far as you >want to extend them (certainly I can expand to include whatever the >XYZ folks want to include -- even if I don't formalize a concept of >'infinity' in so doing). Because 4 positive axes take care of >allspace, every vector has a positive address, but we can still >'subtract' in the sense of adding vectors that take us in any >direction we like, including closer to the origin. > >Think of a 'quadpod' a rocket designed with 4 thrusters pointing >from a center in these 4 omnisymmetric directions. Through >programming of exhaust ratios, I can move my 'origin' through >space so as to connect any two points by a shortest path (geodesic). >Now think of a 'hexapod', a rocked designed with 6 thrusters >pointing to the corners of an octahedron (equivalently the mid- >edges of a tetrahedron). This 'origin' is likewise vectorable >(by addition of thrusts) omnidirectionally. However, it looks >overbuilt and redundant in some ways, deploying thrusters to >directly counter others at 180 degrees. The quadpod evidences >greater economy. Both are adept at navigating conceptual, >Euclidean (volumetric) space, which, again, I maintain predates >XYZ and your fixation of a vector mathematics as primitive to >our notion of 'dimension' -- those formalisms came later, and >pieces of my posted argument are about prying them further apart, >so we can make the addressing machinery and the dimensionality >more logically distinct. > >Kirby > >[1] a bias with a long history in mathematics, going at least back >to Bishop Berkeley's skepticism about the foundations of the calculus >(without denying its relevance or utility -- a separate issue (my >own emphasis on a discrete mathematics built around our newly gained >experience with digital computers would be more congenial to Berkeley's >views I think, and likewise presents no barriers to continuing with >all the calculus algorithms). > >(note to scholars: I'd put Fuller's concerns about the >720 irreducibility vis-a-vis the supposed epsilon-delta >demo of 360-degrees around each vertex at the limit of >an icosasphere as frequency->infinite in the same tradition >as Berkeley's doubts and concerns around the conceptual >basis of the calculus) > > >[2] http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/turtle.html > http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/pascal.html > Also relevant: > http://www.agora.stm.it.k.gordon/phy_6.htm > > >[3] BTW, (0,0,0,0) is an additive identity but so is (1,1,1,1) >or any (n,n,n,n), but we have defined 'simple form' (akin to >'simplified fractions') which reduce all vectors to a single, >unambiguous address (i.e. (0,0,0,0) = (1,1,1,1) in the same >sense that 2/3 = 4/6). David Chako and Peter Kitchin, original >pioneers of these new conventions, have played with using non- >simple forms to register a temporal component. I'm not getting >into that here. > > >---------------------------------------------------- >Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU >Email: pdx4d@teleport.com >Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:28:59 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: loretta lorance MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I was wondering if anyone could help me comprehend the following passage from RBF's "4D Timelock". I'm not sure of two things: 1) how does trigonometry reveal motion better? 2) How are trigonometry and time related? Sorry to quote such a lengthy passage, but, I think it all needs to be read. This is from page 10 of the 1970 edition of "4D Timelock": It is not so much the loss of the brick material itself as in the time loss, represented by its many handlings, in manufacture, transportation, to, up, into, down, out, and away from the building. Without legislation recognizing it, the world is now on a time standard instead of a gold standard in temporal things. Wasting time is exactly the same as throwing away gold usd to be. Therefore we are forced to design and figure in the fourth dimension which is time. In building, this involves the use of a trigonometrical modulus which considers the time element. Incidentally this is the occasion of its being used in "navigation" or mathematics involving large scale motion. A trigonometrical modulus in building, starting from the center and working out, permits absolute modular division and solution of all fitting, impossible to plane or solid geometry modular systems, starting on the outside, and working in, and basedon the fallacy of a possible truly flat surface, and the fallacy of a series of right angles being created by a plumb bob line and a spirit level. These fallacies are generally accepted in the building trade, because the error is considered to be so slight, as not to be worth consideration, by the few acquaintrd with it at all. There is only one truth, and therfore anything based on a lie or fallacy is wrong and must eventually go. Our geometrical habits are our intheritance from our ancestors back in the days when people thought the world to be flat. Despite the truth to the contrary, the vast majority of the world, (which is always so busy with the other person's affairs that it never thinks that the truth which disrupts its habits applies to it personally), has continued to figure and build on this falacious basis. Because man could not by virtue of his materially small stature readily perceive that the world was spheroidal, so has he failed to perceive the time element in his buildings. It was too slow and on too great a scale for his material perception: he has known too little of abstract perception. He can visualize the time element when the material object is seen to move, in relation to the world about him, which he is used to thinking of as motionless. This is only his physical picayunness, his abstract mental, spirtual self can be as large as it wants. It is alone without time, and can, when really exercised and utilized, provide absolutely truthful proportions and characteristics of material things, his metality if trusted will reveal the relativity of temporal (time) matter. Sorry for the length. Thanks!!!! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:25:08 -0700 Reply-To: oregon@ordata.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Oregon Dome Organization: Oregon Dome, Inc. Subject: Dome Raising Pictures Comments: To: domesteading list , Holflin's dome list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To all: A budding web page designer and dome owner has posted some nice pictures of their dome raising up at the following URL: http://www.gallaudet.edu:80/~jevance/dome.html It is a 35' 3/8 sphere dome on a 5' riser wall with a cupola on the top which will soon house a viewing platform. It shows pretty well what comes with our dome kit, including all of the riser walls, natural opening walls, triangles and options like a cupola, dormer and skylights. -- Thanks, Nathan Burke, Oregon Dome, Inc. E-mail: oregon@domes.com Web: http://www.domes.com Address: 3215 Meadow Lane, Eugene OR 97402 Fax: (541) 689-9275 Phone: (800) 572-8943 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:05:51 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: holtor Organization: World Access Subject: selfmade dome would someone be so kind as to point out sites where I could find plans to built a simple geodesic dome, from woodframe or simple metal... or send me a plan for a dome diameter 5 metres.. thanks beforehand ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 18:35:56 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Menu user Organization: University Library Utrecht Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain undeniable facts? Comments: To: SCIMATH@SUPERPRISM.NET Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit we accepted the xyz coordination becuse we have repetedly uded it in solving problems, and we had constantly drwan the axes on the paper. but that doesnt confirm its validity as truthful nature coordination system. the victor equilbrium abstract mytphysical transparent 8 tetra and 6 1/2 octa in tension even in nonexistance is the coordination matrix of nature. all the evidence come close to varifying this system. if it is falsified, it would still be very close to nature system with just minore modification. farthermore, calculating the colume of victor eauilibrum to be 20, knowing Planck constant to be 6.6, and calculating the cube to be volume 3; we can recalculate the xyz system back to the victor equilbruim by multiplying 3x 6.6 =20 which seems to me to evaborate the p constant as unassential. this will introduce rational calculation in physics based on the tetrahedron and will make chemist a friend of the physcist. this might bring the physcist from his high abstraction to the chemist with his multitudional of special cases. tagdi ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:48:50 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain undeniable facts? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" how can i unsubscribe from this list pleeze!!!!!!!!!!!!! At 06:35 PM 4/25/97 +0000, you wrote: >we accepted the xyz coordination becuse we have repetedly uded it >in solving problems, and we had constantly drwan the axes on the >paper. but that doesnt confirm its validity as truthful >nature coordination system. > >the victor equilbrium abstract mytphysical transparent 8 tetra >and 6 1/2 octa in tension even in nonexistance is the coordination >matrix of nature. all the evidence come close to varifying this >system. if it is falsified, it would still be very close to >nature system with just minore modification. > >farthermore, calculating the colume of victor eauilibrum to be >20, knowing Planck constant to be 6.6, and calculating the >cube to be volume 3; we can recalculate the xyz system back >to the victor equilbruim by multiplying 3x 6.6 =20 >which seems to me to evaborate the p constant as unassential. >this will introduce rational calculation in physics based >on the tetrahedron and will make chemist a friend of >the physcist. > >this might bring the physcist from his high abstraction to >the chemist with his multitudional of special cases. > >tagdi > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 18:47:23 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Robert Conroy Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain undeniable facts? tagdi, You wrote: <> Except for being a usefull tool in the modeling of molecular structure when used in concert with the octahedron, I can see no useful or even evident signature of the tetrahedron in Nature when used by itself. Maybe you can explain to me what people find so fascinating with the tetrahedron when used in isolation. Its' symetry may enamor many people, but what in Nature makes you think it it has any significance when isolated. How would you use tetrahedron coordinates to simplify the study of say the structure of viruses. Example x-ray crystallography of viruses: URL: http://www.bocklabs.wisc.edu/virusviz.html Bob ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 18:51:25 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain Menu user writes: > we accepted the xyz coordination becuse we have repetedly uded it > in solving problems, and we had constantly drwan the axes on the > paper. but that doesnt confirm its validity as truthful > nature coordination system. That's exactly what I've been saying. Thank you, Tagdi. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:59:29 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain Robert Conroy writes: > I can see no useful or even evident signature of the > tetrahedron in Nature when used by itself. Well, just off the top of my head, how about sponge spicules? Or any structure that wants a particular orientation with a minimum of structural elements.... > Maybe you can explain to me what people find so > fascinating with the tetrahedron when used in > isolation. While I will admit to the "enamoring" qualities of a tetrahedron's symmetry, its distinction is not because of its symmetry, but because of the fact that it's the smallest (i.e., simplest) stable 3-dimensional structural system. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 17:39:51 +1000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "R.K. Treutlein" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 13:28 24/04/97 -0400, you wrote: >I was wondering if anyone could help me comprehend the following passage >from RBF's "4D Timelock". I'm not sure of two things: 1) how does >trigonometry reveal motion better? 2) How are trigonometry and time related? > >Sorry to quote such a lengthy passage, but, I think it all needs to be read. > >This is from page 10 of the 1970 edition of "4D Timelock": > > >Sorry for the length. Thanks!!!! > Don't be, it's either utter crap, or he suffers from the problem of computer program authors, too close to the stuff to be able to write a usefull manual for it. Rudi Treutlein ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 14:42:12 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Menu user Organization: University Library Utrecht Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain undeniable facts? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Conroy wrote: > > tagdi, > You wrote: > < 20, knowing Planck constant to be 6.6, and calculating the > cube to be volume 3; we can recalculate the xyz system back > to the victor equilbruim by multiplying 3x 6.6 =20 > which seems to me to evaborate the p constant as unassential. > this will introduce rational calculation in physics based > on the tetrahedron and will make chemist a friend of > the physcist.>> > > Except for being a usefull tool in the modeling of molecular structure when > used in concert with the octahedron, I can see no useful or even evident > signature of the tetrahedron in Nature when used by itself. Maybe you can 1/2 of the metals are cubicaly structured, the number somwhere about there. but acturaly the cub has no structure, it is actualy 2 tetra inside each other. i think also sand, and silicate is tetra strucuted, how about methan. nature design with different proportion of surface to volume to weight. when you need more volume with less surface structure it uses high icosahedron for example in designing oranges. > explain to me what people find so fascinating with the tetrahedron when > used in isolation. Its' symetry may enamor many people, but what in Nature > makes you think it it has any significance when isolated. How would you > use tetrahedron coordinates to simplify the study of say the structure of > viruses. well, first it is nice that you study this beautiful forms. we dont know much about thier beuaty because we have little understanding about them except the specialist of course. but also some people have more intution than others to appreciate higher order forms. well, the tetrahedron is not the coordinate itself. the coordinate is victor-equilbrium- which is dynamic- nature never stops there, but it keep isolating asymetricaly for example if you contract the ve you reach the icosa. fuller thought that nature coordiates energy through this wieghtless shape to order its structure. fascinating example is the formation of soap bubles. how do you think nature makes them. if you ask a matimatican, he will have no clue. becuse they assume that such a question is not valid since they take it for granted 200 years of xyz mathematics-not that i know much about mathmatics-. its intutively valid to ask if nautre does coordiante dynamically; i would go even farther in saying that it is logical to ask such a question. the soap bubles keep changing forms- our mathematics in general dismisses alot of things- fragmenting a lot of phenomens and there for minmizing the feeling of mystery. i have a feeling that you are asking a very significant question, synergetics is in its beging stages so there is much exploration to be doen. but let me reverse the question and ask what do you mean by 'simplifying the study of viruses. in the hirarchy of synergetics there are basic volumes and quantums. it starts with tetr being volume 1, cub 3, oct 4, icos 5, victor equilbrum. in xyz the volume of the cub is 1. according to Fuller the reason that mathematics is messy comes from making the volume of the tetra .33.. of the cub this makes it irrational. and makes physics completly messy dealing with all kind of fractions most of us dont understand. but realy this is a very complex subject in need of long time study. keep an open mind to these ideas. my feeling is that physcist reached there limit in exploring phenomenas they dont have any understanding off, they are calculating but does that give them understanding of actualy how events transform. i am diging myself in big trouble; but let me say this in synergetics everyone is equal becuse with little effort you can know some of what the experts are saying. last note: the energy circles of a hydrogen atom is a transparnt tetrahedron circulating- i think 5 million times in a second or a number like that- circuling invesibly- the volume is 1/million of a visible speck approximation- i keep forgetting these numbers. well, if you break these virtual atom you get 24 smaller asymetrical tetrs. these if arranged in particular order in combination with a fraction of the octas make the fundemantal particulas of physics( for further study check synergetics volume I,II). logicaly, and experimentaly-with models- seem to indicate that this quite plausble, of course not for a big head in physics with many years of xyz orientation. anyway, i find it facinating to explore this unconventional geometry. no clear cut conclusion- : so the exploration is open. tagdi p.s if the physcisist are so scientest, why they refuse somthing they know nothing about so quickly. someone has said that in order to be a famouse physcist you have to have a sextual appeal. showing the children the great circles of the spinning-tetrahedron gives me the feeling of particle accelerater. Example x-ray crystallography of viruses: > URL: http://www.bocklabs.wisc.edu/virusviz.html > Bob ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 13:29:24 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Robert Conroy Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain undeniable fact tagdi, You wrote: << 1/2 of the metals are cubicaly structured, the number somwhere about there. but acturaly the cub has no structure, it is actualy 2 tetra inside each other. i think also sand, and silicate is tetra strucuted, how about methan.>> Plato description of elements is a 6 edged 4 sided structure. If you break an octahedron into 8 equal Platonic elements by creating a body centered octahedron you will have a radial system with each radius being 90 degrees from each other. The same 3-D coordinate system as Cartesian. If you take 4 of these octahedron elements and add them to a tetrahedron element, you wind up with a perfect cube. The cube being a combination of both. To say that a cube is 2 tetrahedrons inside of each other is a little beyond my imaginations. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 14:38:37 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: Re: creativity, bankers, In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970419143915.19b74780@pop.ben2.ucla.edu> (message from Gavin Schuette on Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:45:43 -0700) -X-Sender: gav@pop.ben2.ucla.edu -Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic -Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:45:43 -0700 -Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works" - -From: Gavin Schuette - -At 03:14 PM 4/19/97 +0000, you wrote: ->Patrick, -> ->you are in Berkely right. Actually, I'm about 2 hours from Berkeley, but still in the San Francisco Bay Area. ->but anway, how about suggesting a floating city to Japan. ->you know when you tell the japanes the world is spherical ->they say ok, when you tell that to the west; they say ->no the world is flat. I've heard the Japanese are looking into constructing a floating city. It seems the most obvious solution for their growing population and limited land area. I think they are planning tethered/anchored extensions to their current cities, rather than free-floating, open-sea cities. ->patric: ->i like to know your attitude, way of learning anything you ->can contribute. Thanks! :) The more reading I do in different areas, the more I find interconnections. I remember back around the first year of GEODESIC, someone had been lurking for a long time, and joined in on the discussion of domed lunar colonies. They were into metallurgy, and one of the interesting things about aluminum production (the lunar soil is apparently about 1% alluminum -- MUCH higher concentration than on earth) was that a by-product of it was Oxygen! So as you refine the lunar soil to build materials for a domed city, you're also producing oxygen to fill it with! Talk about synergy! :-) Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- "Those who fail do so because they wait for things to happen... Those who succeed do so because they make things happen" ...author unknown ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 21:28:13 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: The Lorax Organization: pcOnline Internet Services Subject: Re: Shrink-wrap domes In-Reply-To: <199704180717.AAA11806@bootstrap.sculptors.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Patrick Salsbury wrote: > When I lived in Buffalo, NY a few years ago, it got very cold in > the winter. (The stories you've heard are probably true! ;^) ) And so most > of the people in Buffalo and the Northern Reaches would get a plastic > shrink-wrap material that came in large sheets. Usually from the 3M > corporation. This stuff was very thin, but provided a wonderful > draft-guard, which helped you conserve quite a bit of heat. (Especially > since at least a couple of the windows in our old house were single-pane > glass!) > You applied it with 2-sided tape around your window-frames inside, > then used a hair dryer to apply heat. The plastic would shrink and tighten, > providing you with a transparent, taut, film with an insulating air-layer > between it and the window. > > How does this pertain to domes? I was considering trying to either > purchase or make a gigantic, semi-spherical "bag" of this material, to > fluff & drape over a geodesic framework. Then, fasten down the edges, put a > space-heater inside the dome, and the bag just shrinks to fit, nice & tight > over the frame. The stuff wouldn't be durable over multiple seasons, most > likely, but would make for a very neat, ultra-light "gossamer" structure, > and if it was truly that easy to apply, you could just do a new one each > spring. > > Now the trick is just to make it into that bag, or see if 3M has > anything like that in stock already which might be adapted... Why worry about making it into a bag? Why not just wrap it around the dome, put a double row of the double stick tape about an inch in from the edge, then wrap the next level, and so on until you have the entire structure covered? I'm in Minnesota, we use the same stuff every winter and to be frugal I have taped pieces together this way. They hold still shrink just as tight and hold up great. May whatever gods you see watch over you all your days. St.. Paul, Minnesota ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:51:49 +1000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "R.K. Treutlein" Subject: Re: Dome project in India Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:37 28/04/97 +1200, you wrote: >I wonder what has gone wrong? Perhaps someone knows more about this project >and can fill in the gaps. It would be a shame if domes as a means of cheap >housing got off to a really bad start ... > >Thanks, >Cath It's really quite simple, domes are not houses to the indian people. An old german saying translates as :"What the peasant doesn't know, he won't eat". The trouble with all these domes as emergency housing is that they are just too alien for the people, no matter how badly off they are. Rudi Treutlein ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:17:02 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gavin Schuette Subject: Re: Dome project in India Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" no worries, capitalism will sort them out, end all government sppon feeding and they wil adopt the domes to survive, and probably be very happy for them and may even learn to improve and create more domes! :) Gavin At 05:51 PM 4/28/97 +1000, you wrote: >At 01:37 28/04/97 +1200, you wrote: > >>I wonder what has gone wrong? Perhaps someone knows more about this project >>and can fill in the gaps. It would be a shame if domes as a means of cheap >>housing got off to a really bad start ... >> >>Thanks, >>Cath >It's really quite simple, domes are not houses to the indian people. An old >german saying translates as :"What the peasant doesn't know, he won't eat". >The trouble with all these domes as emergency housing is that they are just >too alien for the people, no matter how badly off they are. > > Rudi Treutlein > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:56:57 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Al McMahon Subject: Action Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I seem to remember someone telling of land for sale in the western united states by some railroad. at $50 an acre. Does anybody know about this?? My point is: Let us begin. My current background. I work with dairy cooperatives. This is handy information. (please note the difference of Cooperative and Commune) For example 6,540 dairy farmers own a business that handles 1 billion dollars a year. I am very familiar with corporate structure I could start working on a legal background on creating a company or cooperative. (brothers a lawyer/can't hurt) I actually have a company lying around I think?.? It would have by-laws and a goal. It would have a formula for those that want to leave (a buy out at market price ect. . .) after all not everybody would be willing to kick in money if there was a lack of structure and no way to back out if they became unhappy. Anyway should we, as a group, elaborate? This would be a PROVING ground!~! It would seem to me that we could buy a few acres. . . set up meetings and agendas and I would spend My spare time there. Location should be secondary. After all with domes and earthships and a crew like us location is NOT the problem, I want to learn and it is only by experience that we Know. Who's interested.. P.S. ~Pat~ is this also a domesteading project? Endeavor to Perservere..... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:22:30 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: James McCaig Subject: Re: Action Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Friends, There is a pioneering Sufi community in New Mexico. They have scrimped together enough to purchase about 2,000 acres near Silver City. They are making the payments of about $100,000 per year and "pioneers" are needed to begin to improve the land. Sufis in new Mexico (The Lama Foundation) have constructed a dome near Taos and people who are interested in domes will have great appeal for Sufis, who recognize the science of sounds and chanting as basic to human understanding and well being. Domes provide the best venue for this practice. No job exists, no plan is made, the group is 10,000 strong, organized very loosely across the US and dedicated to spiritual liberty and love, harmony and beauty. Cash is tight. Applications are being accepted for pioneers in this VERY RURAL community (horses have the best four wheeel drive for this road!). For further information, please respond to me off list. Warm regards, 07:56 PM 4/28/97 -0400, you wrote: >I seem to remember someone telling of land for sale in the western united >states by some railroad. at $50 an acre. > >Does anybody know about this?? > >My point is: > >Let us begin. > >My current background. >I work with dairy cooperatives. This is handy information. > (please note the difference of Cooperative and Commune) >For example 6,540 dairy farmers own a business that handles 1 billion >dollars a year. > >I am very familiar with corporate structure > >I could start working on a legal background on creating a company or >cooperative. >(brothers a lawyer/can't hurt) I actually have a company lying around I >think?.? > >It would have by-laws and a goal. > >It would have a formula for those that want to leave (a buy out at market >price ect. . .) >after all not everybody would be willing to kick in money if there was a >lack of structure and no way to back out if they became unhappy. > >Anyway should we, as a group, elaborate? > >This would be a PROVING ground!~! > >It would seem to me that we could buy a few acres. . . set up meetings and >agendas and I would spend My spare time there. Location should be >secondary. After all with domes and earthships and a crew like us location >is NOT the problem, > >I want to learn and it is only by experience that we Know. > >Who's interested.. > > >P.S. ~Pat~ is this also a domesteading project? > > > Endeavor to Perservere..... > > > Maharaj James McCaig | Sufi Center of Washington Brotherhood/Sisterhood Representative | Keepers of Sufi Center Bookstore United States | http://guess.worldweb.net/sufi jmccaig@worldweb.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:01:15 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: SQuick2653 Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: The ICDD Clinics on X-ray Powder Diffraction and X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry The International Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD) is a nonprofit scientific organization that collects, edits, publishes, and distributes powder diffraction data for the identification of crystalline materials. The International Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD) is committed to promoting the applications of materials characterization methods in science and technology by providing educational programs such as the ICDD Clinics. The ICDD Clinics on X-ray Powder Diffraction and X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry are conducted annually in June. The format combines theoretical and practical applications with ample time for the students to discuss their applications and problems with the faculty. In pursuing its dynamic commitment to education, the ICDD offers a limited number of tuition waivers for the Clinic on X-ray Powder Diffraction. The four sessions are described as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ICDD Clinic on X-ray Powder Diffraction Session I - Fundamentals of X-ray Powder Diffraction June 2-6, 1997 Covering instrumentation, specimen preparation, data acquisition, and qualitative phase analysis. Session II - Advanced Methods in X-ray Powder Diffraction June 9-13, 1997 Emphasizing computer-based methods of data collection and interpretation, both for qualitative and quantitative phase analysis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ICDD Clinic on X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry Session I - Fundamentals of X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry June 16-20, 1997 Covering basics of X-ray spectra, instrumentation design, methods of qualitative and quantitative analysis, specimen preparation and applications for both wavelength and energy dispersive spectrometry. Session II - Advanced Methods in X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry June 23-27, 1997 Emphasizing quantitative methods, use of automated X-ray spectrometers, review of mathematical matrix correction procedures, and new developments in XRF. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fees and Inquiries The $1,250 fee for each session includes textbook, lecture notes, use of computers (where applicable), and lunch. Please direct all inquiries and requests for a comprehensive brochure (available January 1997) to: Manager, Schools & Conferences International Centre for Diffraction Data 12 Campus Boulevard Newtown Square, PA 19073-3273 Tel: (610) 325-9814 Fax: 610/325-9823 E-mail: clinics@icdd.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:01:13 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Action Al McMahon writes: > P.S. ~Pat~ is this also a domesteading project? (This sounds like a DomeSteading project to me....) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:59:01 +0000 Reply-To: cas1276@madison.tec.wi.us Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chuck Stoffregen Organization: Madison Area Technical College Subject: Re: Action MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This would be a PROVING ground!~! > > It would seem to me that we could buy a few acres. . . set up meetings and > agendas and I would spend My spare time there. Location should be > secondary. After all with domes and earthships and a crew like us location > is NOT the problem, > > I want to learn and it is only by experience that we Know. > > Who's interested.. > Please elaborate. I tried to find info on communes on the net but was unsuccessful. It seems my wife has an unusual burial request, she wants to be buried in the foundation of a dome. She said I could build a dome over her dead body. Thanks, Chuck Stoffregen 141 Rickel Road Sun Prairie, WI 53590 cas1276@madison.tec.wi.us ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 07:18:58 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: 4D Solutions Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain undeniable facts? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Conroy wrote: >Except for being a usefull tool in the modeling of molecular structure when >used in concert with the octahedron, I can see no useful or even evident >signature of the tetrahedron in Nature when used by itself. Maybe you can >explain to me what people find so fascinating with the tetrahedron when >used in isolation. Its' symetry may enamor many people, but what in Nature >makes you think it it has any significance when isolated. How would you >use tetrahedron coordinates to simplify the study of say the structure of >viruses. Example x-ray crystallography of viruses: >URL: http://www.bocklabs.wisc.edu/virusviz.html >Bob Carbon valence electrons approximate the 4 corners of a tetrahedron (well-known organic chemistry journal by that title). Many metals have tetrahedral bonding (including mid-edge). Keep in mind that stacking cannon balls in tetrahedral formation _is_ the face-centered cubic (includes the octahedra). The virus capsomere counts relate to outer shell sphere counts in a cuboctahedron, which is another shape derived from sphere packing. Basically, sphere packing in the so-called 'isotropic vector matrix' is what we mean by 'tetrahedral coordination' in synergetics. Note also that segments from the center of a tetrahedron to its 6 mid-edges defines the XYZ apparatus 90-90-90 degree divergence. We can subsume Cartesianism as another application of the tetra- hedron's properties (in this case the symmetry of opposite pairs of orthogonal edges). Kirby For more re viruses: http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/synergetica/synergetica1.html Also here's a relevant quote: [ Fuller illustrated the "weightlessness" of his abstractions with a series of images of geodesiclike organic forms recently made visible by science. By the early 1960s, tiny domes -- in the form of the protein shells of certain viruses -- were already being spotted by scientists peering through electron microscopes. In uncanny anticipatioin of Kroto and Smalley, scientist Robert Horne, waxing lyrical over the little creatures' "wonderful underlying symmetry," tells of being referred to the same book (Marks's monograph on Fuller) while working on the viruses: "We opened it and there is was all worked out. It seems that both Fuller and nature have picked out the most rigid geometry they can find. ] Reinhold Martin, Crystal Balls, ANY 17 (New York, Anyone Corporation, 1997) pg. 37. ---------------------------------------------------- Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU Email: pdx4d@teleport.com Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:58:30 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain Good. I had a *feeling* tetrahedra were good for more than building kites :-) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:38:31 +1000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "R.K. Treutlein" Subject: Re: Action Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:59 29/04/97 +0000, Chuck wrote: >It seems my wife has an unusual burial request, she wants to be buried >in the foundation of a dome. She said I could build a dome over her dead >body. > ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL Rudi T. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:03:22 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Curt McNamara Subject: Bucky's _Everything I Know_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I recently acquired an audio-tape copy of _Everything I Know_ from the Buckminster Fuller Institute. For those of you unfamiliar with this work, it is a 42 hour session recorded in 1975. Bucky had told some of his associates that if he was given 40 hours, he could teach them everything he knew. Over the next several months I will be going over these tapes, and wondered if there was anyone out there who wanted to join in an electronic discussion of the material. I will be taking the study rather seriously, as I hope to gain an intuitive understanding of his "spherical geometry". There is a distinct possibility that summaries of our discussions can be posted back to the appropriate lists for archiving. The tapes can be purchased from the BFI -- they can be reached via e-mail at bfi@aol.com, via the web at www.bfi.org, and via telephone at (805) 962-0022. The whole set is somewhat expensive, but individual volumes may be ordered for $35 for six tapes. Curt (curtm@dgii.com) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:54:06 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "J. Michael Rowland" Organization: Management 21 Inc. Subject: Re: Bucky's _Everything I Know_ Curt, I just phoned BFI and am going to place an order for the first volume of tapes. There are 7 volumes, and each volume costs $35 + $8 shipping/handling.