Category Archives: Mathematics

A little more detail for the math and science minded.

Life (Redux)

I have recently discovered  a new tool for modeling.

After many years of seeking an easy way to translate between 90° Cartesian coordinates and 60° coordinates of nature, Google has made available SketchUp a free, three-dimensional modeling package that is really quite good. I used 3D studio Max for many years and switched to POV-Ray for reasonable results without having to pay thousands of dollars for licensing.

While SketchUp has a Pro version, I find the free version more than adequate. That being said, I will probably upgrade to Pro take full advantage.

SketchUp 2017 is available for free download. I used it to develop the above models in a relatively short time. The ability to translate an object in a very intuitive fashion makes conversion to 60° coordinates relatively simple. As you can see, I have only begun to scratch the surface and I find that the use of “components”, which then can be used within other components, a wonderful tool.

SketchUp is also available as a viewer. Let me know if there’s any interest in having my models available.

I see some excellent opportunities for educational models. I hope to stay very active in this as I see it as a great opportunity to finally model some of the key concepts that Fuller puts before us.

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

Wavelinearity


This post is a bit of an experiment so please bear with me. What I am trying to show is that there are many different ways to see the same evidence. In the following series of images we have several different ways to visualize a sine wave. Let’s have a look at wavelinearity. Now, this phenomenon is much of the basis of western science and is invoked in various contexts from electronics and sound to metaphysics.

The changing images below all describe the same sine wave structure. Interestingly, in envisioning it as a 2 dimensional wave requires an up/down on/off change of direction as part of the represented cycle and works well with the concept of limits and higher mathematical functions. Not so if we view it as a rotation about a common axis, then it appears more related to angular momentum and is more easily described with relatively few mathematical gyrations.

 

A=440 vs A=432 Leads to a Challenge

I have just had a friend recommend an article he read on the significance of Standard Tuning of A440 HZ or A432 HZ and the ramifications of this fact. He and I are both musicians but the implication of the article is that this 8 HZ difference represents far more than musical inclinations. From this site you can get to all sorts of discussions and controversies: Rothschild’s, Illuminati, enslavement.

This got me to the field of Cymatics and some spectacular patterns generated by sound vibrations. It also got me to a really interesting conspiracy theory basically claiming that The Pope and Hitler had tried to shift standard tuning from 432 HZ, which, they (the conspirators) claim had always been used for 2000 years because; they had discovered that this shift in frequency was what caused people to be more inclined to fight and disagree, to generate aggression. Kind of like when you are running out of your favorite <fill-in-the-blank> .

A lot of these sites basically took some very interesting and verifiable facts and combined them in some interesting ways to then generate some pretty fantastic conclusions supposedly based on these facts. Then I realized this is really what happens with every conspiracy theory. Start with an idea, preferably outrageous, and take a few facts, kludge them together and BINGO “Theory Proved.”

Now, fact checking is a bitch; someone makes a statement, maybe they reference it, maybe they don’t. Do you believe them? Here’s what I usually do. The first statement I don’t already know something about, I look up (in what I believe are reliable sources) to get some background. Then I continue with the article. If the conspirator makes a statement and I can confirm it easily I continue. After a number of these fact checks prove verifiable I can ease off and continue the article leaving out the fact checking. However, if I am going to put that article up or quote it, I really should check all of the significant statements. As Arthur C. Clark said, “If you allow me to pick and choose which facts I can use, I can prove anything.”

Unfortunately, when I applied this standard reference practice most of the conspiracy stuff just went away. The first 5 facts I looked into were just plain false. Why weren’t the great cathedral  organs tuned to 432? Why were the tuning forks of Haydn (415) and Bach (422) NOT tuned to 432? Why wouldn’t the ear cochlea adjust, over growth, to adapt to its environment? Why wouldn’t any orchestra use the tuning to lure customers back to their superior feeling music? Why aren’t we all crazy? Well, let’s hold on that one, the jury’s still out. More significantly, where is the hard evidence? Give me something. Take 2 rooms full of 6 yr olds and expose one to a 440 tone and the other to a 432? Try it for a while then switch tones. This ain’t rocket science but I think it falls squarely in the scientific method. Expose someone to 432 HZ while doing an MRI and then to 440 HZ. We can see all sorts of things. Where’s the evidence?

It’s a pain in the ass but, ya gotta do it. “But what does this have to do with Synergetics?”, you might ask? Just this:

I contend Synergetics gives us a way to simplify the entire fact checking process by not having to keep proving the same shit over and over again, which is exactly what we are doing. Take some facts, put them together based on preconceived notions and jump to a totally irrelevant conclusion. It may be hardwired in, which is why I try to stick to a pretty strict interpretation of the Scientific Method.

Here’s how it works:

I want to take this entire idea that there is a true significance to the difference between A440 HZ and A432 HZ and see if we can’t make sense of it. But, rather than start with the conclusion (the Pope and the Hitler had discovered something about that frequency ) and seeking facts to support what this discovery must be, let’s see if we can’t come up with a much simpler and clearer explanation for facts we are being shown. I suspect this may take a while but, I think, if we can make it work, it will be self confirming. Furthermore, we hope to demonstrate that these same facts may be recombined to explain any number of phenomena. Sacred Geometry, Holistic Medicine, Psychology, Market fluctuations, Chemistry, Physics, Languages are the ones I have looked at so far and all seem to work nicely within the network provided us by Synergetics. Not giving us predictions, but allowing us to understand what variables are truly important to the area we are exploring and giving more reliable predictability, while allowing for true freedom. In addition, it gives us several additional variables we didn’t even know we had!

The real beauty is that it is a very small set of facts. We shall refer to these as “generalized principles”, which must work everywhere and everywhen to be even considered facts and, once gotten, become the basis of any other area of the Universe we would like to explore. This is how a hologram works, this is how we apply the concept of holons and it all works together.

Sorry, no pictures yet but I am working on the models.

Stay tuned! I want to examine the work of Nassim Haramein and Frank Chester at the Rhode Island School of Design, both of whom have some very good ideas but abuse the application of their “so-called” discoveries.

Infinity

I would like to state that, at this point, I don’t believe in the concept of “infinity”. The idea that anything goes on forever; time or direction wise doesn’t compute with me. That should make it obvious that I don’t believe that the Universe is infinite. I think most modern physicists ascribe to this view also. Unless, of course, one wants to equate “infinite” with “God” and basically other incomprehensible concepts.

Our very definitions of point, line, area, volume, as examples of 0, 1, 2 and 3 dimensional concepts, just don’t exist, even conceptually. Can you perceive of a one sided plane surface? We throw in the idea of infinity as an axiom to be taken as stated, much as the idea of 3 dimensions is taken as axiomatic rather than as the misconstrued standard that it has proven to be. None of these things works consistently, or conceptually.

What we have, at the base line are, location, direction (angle) and vector (the length and direction from one point to another). With these basic, quite intuitive, concepts, we can express the complexities of our Universe in ways unprecedented with our 3 dimensional “Standard Model”.

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.