3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Math]
|
Prev: how much is...
Next: " THE END OF AN HISTORIC ERA OF PRIME NUMBER HEGEMONY OF MATHEMATICS" AN INVITATION TO ALL MATHEMATICIANS, BY INVERSE19 MATHEMATICS TO SEE THE "WIZARD" IN HIS BOX.
From: Clifford J. Nelson on 25 Apr 2010 16:20 > Bucky is sufficiently peculiar in his language, > to preclude direct quotation -- a-hem, but please, > include a link to Grey's _Synergetics_ online. > anyway, > in the usual meaning, the "12 degrees" would only be > six, if > even that WRT to mere position -- why XYZ is so good. > > anyway, Amy's and Bucky's 12-spoke minimum was shown > to be completely wrong, by one of us participating > in a now-defunct mail-list; ask someone > who has actually built a wheel from rim & struts, > and they may be able to recall, when it goes > structural. > (Edmondson's and Fuller's conjecture, > which is probably an artifact of the 36-spoke > standard, > is in > http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s07/p8100.ht > ml#783.00, > some where; Bob was actually able to find a > symeetrical > configuration, using the that standard, which I > thought could > not be done .-) > > now, prove mathematically that that is the minimum, > once you've found it ... unless, > you can just prove it, directly -- only standard > spokes > on a standard rim! > > > http://mysite.verizon.net/cjnelson9/index.htm > I remember nobody knew the difference between tension and compression. Tension versus compression. http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/p4000.html Illustrations. http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/figs/f4020.html http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/figs/f4041a.html http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s06/figs/f4041b.html It's amazing that any number of tension spokes can stabilize a flimsy wire wheel. Cliff Nelson
From: spudnik on 26 Apr 2010 13:18 the whole *problem* is the diagramming, which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched on paper. you simply do not need the pants, the lightcones they're made with, and the paradoxes of "looping in time" because of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, you won't be able to do *any* physics, that isn't "junkyard physics." > in a spacetime diagramm (that with a lightcone), the sheet denoted as > space is actually imaginary and should be called now. This is > anti-symmetric and 'spinning'. The (our !) past lightcone is what we > call space, if we look into the sky. So space is space to us, because it > is us here on Earth, that look into the sky. > The 'real thing' is than this spacelike plane. That has to be multiplied > by three, because there is one dimension missing in this picture and > there are three ways to combine two out of three axes. > Now, there are three rotations, one for each plane. This is like the > rudders of a plain and the resulting curves are three-dimensional > spirals, that add up to three dimensional patterns. If those are > timelike stable, we call that matter, if not we call it radiation. > Since the observer defines, what is timelike (through being somewhere > and treating himself as at rest), he defines also, what is matter and > what is radiation. > > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. thus: so, if aether has mass, then it must be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist that energy cannot flow through matter, as light waves through air? in your alleged model, how does light travel through air vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, created whem "mass is converted-or-not to energy") ?? it seems that you are arguing in increasingly smaller circles. > The products retain the original mass > because the product is aether. > Light waves propagate through the aether. thus: you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" than "photons," which is three things that have never been seen. Young proved that all properties of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls o'light for British academe. well, even if any large thing could be accelerated to so close to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 26 Apr 2010 15:09 On Apr 26, 10:18 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > the whole *problem* is the diagramming, > which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned > into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched > on paper. you simply do not need the pants, > the lightcones they're made with, and > the paradoxes of "looping in time" because > of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate > with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. > > quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, > per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if > biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- > Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. > > as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, > you won't be able to do *any* physics, > that isn't "junkyard physics." > > > > > > > in a spacetime diagramm (that with a lightcone), the sheet denoted as > > space is actually imaginary and should be called now. This is > > anti-symmetric and 'spinning'. The (our !) past lightcone is what we > > call space, if we look into the sky. So space is space to us, because it > > is us here on Earth, that look into the sky. > > The 'real thing' is than this spacelike plane. That has to be multiplied > > by three, because there is one dimension missing in this picture and > > there are three ways to combine two out of three axes. > > Now, there are three rotations, one for each plane. This is like the > > rudders of a plain and the resulting curves are three-dimensional > > spirals, that add up to three dimensional patterns. If those are > > timelike stable, we call that matter, if not we call it radiation. > > Since the observer defines, what is timelike (through being somewhere > > and treating himself as at rest), he defines also, what is matter and > > what is radiation. > > > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > > This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. > > thus: > so, if aether has mass, then it must > be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist > that energy cannot flow through matter, > as light waves through air? > > in your alleged model, > how does light travel through air > vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, > created whem "mass is converted-or-not > to energy") ?? > > it seems that you are arguing > in increasingly smaller circles. > > > The products retain the original mass > > because the product is aether. > > Light waves propagate through the aether. > > thus: > you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" > than "photons," which is three things that have > never been seen. Young proved that all properties > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls > o'light for British academe. well, even if > any large thing could be accelerated to so close > to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known > as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" > -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- > it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, > per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, > this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," > not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > > > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, > > thus: > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space aether has 6 round directions. Mitch Raemsch
From: The Real SID on 28 Apr 2010 10:54 On Apr 1, 7:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Directions are: > > Up down > Right left > Front back > > When we move through space we are moving in a 6 directional space grid > in only 3 of these directions. > > Mitch Raemsch 4th dimension gone return
From: BURT on 28 Apr 2010 16:21
On Apr 28, 7:54 am, The Real SID <marog...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Apr 1, 7:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Directions are: > > > Up down > > Right left > > Front back > > > When we move through space we are moving in a 6 directional space grid > > in only 3 of these directions. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > 4th dimension > > gone return We are in the round 4th dimensions surface and its radial geometry is inside with its total aether. Mitch Raemsch |