Category Archives: Richard Buckminster Fuller

The source of many of the ideas developed in this work.

A Dymaxion World


June 2, 2016


Not having had any weed for roughly 2 months we just shared a joint and did it ever work! You see, I’ve also been getting off a highly addictive painkiller called Lyrica and it’s a real freaking hassle. I get these waves of anxiety and depression and pain. But it’s all in the neurotransmitters. I can’t see it. Nobody can look at it or realize that it’s there; it doesn’t even really hurt that much. It’s just very, very distracting. I wind up having virtually no desire do much of anything and yet I’m constantly complaining about having nothing to do. I’ve got to break this cycle now!.

Oh, by the way, both marijuana and Lyrica claim to be analgesic, antidepressants (in my case demonstrably so in both cases) but unlike the Lyrica the marijuana is not highly addictive. When I quit it several months ago I had no anxiety; maybe one or two nights of troubles getting to sleep till my body adjusted. The Lyrica on the other hand I have cut down the dosage by 50% have been staying on this for the last two months and every day just seems to get worse and worse. I have sleeplessness, strange dreams, anxiety, depression and pain in waves. I’m also noting a significant loss of mobility; things that I’ve been able to do all along I seem to be having trouble with including getting up in the morning. I really should make the choice here; do I go back on the Lyrica to get rid of the anxiety and pain or do I go back to the pot with the same affect but natural ingredients and nonaddictive? I just don’t know if the marijuana by itself will be adequate for the pain, I know it works for the anxiety and depression though. But I would like to try it first. I have to talk to Betsy about this. Or, Do I just tough it out? I think the agony is in the waiting; everything moves so slowly here.

So no more excuses; I must get started on something to occupy my time or I’m going to go out of my mind. So what better time than for me to start working on this model/game?

So here I am about halfway through Lee Smolin’s, The Life of the Cosmos and he is discussing self-organizing patterns in the universe; from the galactic clusters to the subatomic particle. Think fractal, think scale, patterns that reappear and interact. He’s come to the point where he proposes that these patterns and expressions are what it may really be all about. He appears to be having a problem with certain aspects of what we perceive as reality not being validated with these underlying patterns.

To me this brings together an absolutely amazing… how shall I say it; overlay of patterns.

So, what if we take what Smolin is saying but, instead of using the three-dimensional system he’s “imagining” in and working with, we use Fuller’s four dimensional system as our gameboard. Keep in mind that with the Dymaxion gameboard the flat surface of the board actually represents three dimension with the fourth dimension being perpendicular to the surface. Is it possible that being able to lay out your parameters on a flat, three-dimensional surface, might make it much easier to see what that fourth dimension needs to be. Maybe even so strange as X, Y, Z, or Yellow. For Smolin does recognize gaming as an important part of self organization. So using this new system with my gameboard, and a certain set of rules, can we generate spiral galaxies? Can we create algorithms that mimic biological systems? Keeping in mind we have an extra dimension to play with while tweaking our parameters.

I have to put the following into some type of priority order:

⦁ Gameboard

Prototype gameboard
Prototype gameboard

 

 

 

 

 

 


⦁ IVM model

 

⦁ POV-Ray
⦁ Graphics
⦁ Mathematics?
⦁ Life Rules
⦁ Relative Scales
⦁ Parameter Controls

For right now I’m going to continue with Smolin and come back to this list periodically and update it regularly.

If anybody has any interest in this email me at donmcybertect@Gmail.com

Synergetics Classroom


One of the goals of this site is to promote the learning and teaching of Synergetics. Fuller believed, and demonstrated, that Synergetics, based on the closest packing of spheres, was the geometric system used by nature. In numerous drawings and illustrations he laid out the characteristics and numerology of such a system. It has been largely overlooked.

One of the shortcomings of the book was the lack of models. Remember, this was long before computer graphics and modelling. We have come along way, with new technologies, and means of distributing knowledge and information, we have the ability to rectify this.

Unfortunately, new ideas aren’t always easily incorporated into an entrenched system of beliefs and changes of this scope rarely come from above. It is far easier to enlighten young people than to try to change their mentors. As a start, I would like to develop a Synergetics Classroom. A place with demonstrations of  Synergetic concepts and principles, to discuss the ideas as examples of real, physical concepts we see everyday. Additionally, we would like to provide a “gateway” to approach  this fascinating Synergetic Universe we have here from a familiar direction.

The next challenge will be to enlist teachers to learn these basic concepts, to learn to build these models and to distribute these tools which may help to give us a better understanding of this Universe we all inhabit.

First There’s Nothing, Then There Is.

Fuller starts us out at a place that nicely coincides with the numbers given us by modern physics.

In high school math you may or may not recall the parts about actions and reactions, Newton’s laws, that stuff. The billiard balls and angles. Well, basically we still use these same laws, and, not a whole hell of a lot more. We shoot things at things for US$50 Billion and see how they react. Makes sense in a basically 2 dimensional universe. We can even make it work more or less in a 3 dimensional Universe but let’s have a look at this, shall we?

The billiard balls we are examining are moving about in what appear to be indeterminate patterns. For arguments sake, and a coherent starting place, we’ll call this “space”; Aether, vacuum space, Zero Point Energy, Higgs field, whatever. Seems to be where all the energy is, no matter how you cut it. It’s everywhere and it’s just energy events. Now, let’s take, for a moment, the work of the Russian scientists  referenced in David Wilcock’s work which we will use presently to nicely model the toroidal (doughnut shapes) used in Kozyrev’s and, later, Nassim Haramein’s presentations.

Fuller uses the term “energy event” and combines these as action-reaction-resultant. Remember, there aren’t 2 balls on a flat plane but millions all going in different directions. Now, let’s throw in the unprovable, but highly plausible, hypothesis that somehow, consciousness (human or otherwise) can cause these energy events as a disturbance in the counter-rotating layers of this aether. We can even use this model to exhibit where angular momentum (another physics sticking point) may come from.

 
To summarize, let’s see if we can map these up/down spins of modern physics with the 4 dimensional advantages of Synergetics. Shown here on the right as some of Fuller’s original sketches.

I’m open to suggestions.

I can now also see how the Up and Down characteristics of physics can relate to the radiant and gravitational aspects of Synergetics giving us the “tunable/untunable” in the form of visible and invisible, perhaps?

Cosmic Hierarchy


This is a model of what Fuller titled “Cosmic Hierarchy for Omniinterrationally-phased, Nuclear-centered, Convergently-divergently Intertransformable Systems.” We’ll get into the details as we progress. For now we’ll just take a look at it.


It could be that this model embodies the soul of Synergetics. Could these 6 geometric figures comprise the entire structural system of our Universe? Fuller seemed to think so. Think of the hologram. As these figures nest and recombine they follow the same rules of geometry at every level and repeat every 6 levels. I think this system can be used to model anything in a way much closer to the way nature does.

Now, in many areas Fuller went into much greater detail as to how these figures can be subdivided and rearranged to explain many physical phenomena. I’ll leave that to others. I am going to try to use my own models to illustrate as many physical principles as I can, as they occur to me.