Prev: When your math is wrong
Next: expanding the history chapter of this book Chapt 2 #156; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Yann David on 21 Jun 2010 19:47
Hum, is your "augmented" octahedron still planar though? How would you
draw it in the plane?
From: Jasen Betts on 24 Jun 2010 01:18
On 2010-06-21, Yann David <yann_david(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hum, is your "augmented" octahedron still planar though? How would you
> draw it in the plane?

Any graph that can be inscribed on the surface of a sphere can be
translated to a planar graph quite easily.

Immagine the sphere to be a elastic membrane (like a rubber baloon)
piece a face of the figure(ie at a point distant from edges and
vertices) and stretch this opening until the sphereical shell is
a flat membrane.























--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: bill on 24 Jun 2010 21:41
On Jun 21, 4:47 pm, Yann David <yann_da...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hum, is your "augmented" octahedron still planar though? How would you
> draw it in the plane?

Start with a hexagon. Number the vertices 1 thru 6
sequentially. Add edges 13, 35, 51, 24, 46 and 62. This is a planar
embedding of an octahedron. To
get the "augmented" version add a vertex to each of the
7 interior faces of the graph, but no vertex in the
external face.

From: spudnik on 25 Jun 2010 14:29
all convex polyhedra are readily projected
to the plane, from a vertex or a face -- usually
the latter, so as not to have lines going off
of the paper; "Schlaffli diagrams?"

> Start with a hexagon.  Number the vertices 1 thru 6
> sequentially.  Add edges 13, 35, 51, 24, 46 and 62.  This is a planar
> embedding of an octahedron. To
> get the "augmented" version add a vertex to each of the
> 7 interior faces of the graph, but no vertex in the
> external face.

thus&so:
well it's a good experiment, "coking" water and
calcium carbonate to make these hydrocarbs
"up to 20 carbons," but I misread the statement
about "oil theory with currect [sic] genesis." presumably,
the neologism indicates that the current "impact theory"
of lunar genesis is neither here nor there nor correct,
being based really on computerized simulacra and
a gross lack of data (no space program in the USA ...
no energy policy, either, but cap&trade on CO2, a-hem;
also, who told me that all of the USA seismometers etc.
from Apollo were arbitrarily turned-off, supposedly
with no recourse toe turn them back, on?

anyway, given the low seismic inactivity of Moon,
it is hard to see active seeps on it, as in Gulf or
off of Redondo Beach, Calif., which seems
to be a requirement of the abiotic theory, which seems
to propose that the T & P are ultimately due
to fission (also, fusion?) within Earth.

> > This abiotic oil theory along with the currect genesis

thus&so:
the acolyte of Hubbard at Shell, wrote a couple
of books that lay-out many of the indsutry's assumptions,
_Peak Oil_ and _Beyond Oil_, if somewhat Greeny -- and
very-much "better late, than never."

presumably the processing of biogenic oil
in the tectonic system would degrade the chirality etc.;
I mean, there are all sorts of organic plastics
in the sediment, and enormous production of it on Earth. so,
is one really to presume that none of this gets
into the system -- that it is somehow to be called,
fossilized fuels (TM) ??

--BP loves Waxman-Obama cap&trade (at least circa Kyoto, or
Waxman's '91 cap&trade on NOX and SO2) --
how about a tiny tax, instead of the Last Bailout
of Wall Street and the "City of London?"
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100621pne_nordyke.html

--le theoreme prochaine du Fermatttt!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: When your math is wrong
Next: expanding the history chapter of this book Chapt 2 #156; ATOM TOTALITY