Re: Fourth Dimension (4D)

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Fourth Dimension (4D)

Kirby Urner-5
> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:09:25 EDT
> From: Timothy Golden <[hidden email]>
> You are coming along, Kirby. I did check out your
> links. The triangular format in the first link is
> very important.

I use that frequently.  Just as the Pythagorean Theorem
does not depend on squares for its proof, so do our
notions of 2nd and 3rd powering not pertain to right
angles necessarily.  There's a cultural fixation on
90 degrees (the root meaning of orthodox, or vice versa)
but in any liberal arts curriculum worth beans, that
gets commented upon, not accepted blindly, without

> This happens to be the nonredundant format of the
> electromagnetic tensor, and the format of the
> polysign progression.
> Yes, I understand that your own quadray
> representation is consistent with the simplex
> coordinate system. I link to your site from my site


Thanks also for joining us for a sojourn on one of
the "Bucky lists".  We're a thriving subculture these
days with "branch offices" in many different communities.

> The fact that you have a vector space consistent with
> existing Euclidean goemetry goes in conflict with
> Fuller's insistence on challenging the Euclidean
> version.

I replied to this earlier.  It's precisely because we're
covering a lot of the same ground that the Euclidean
version is challenged.  Were we to escape into some
ethereal "other dimensional" space, we'd be avoiding
taking the bull by the horns.
> When these principles are take general dimensionally
> it is exposed that the real line itself is one of
> these simplex coordinate systems. It is likewise true
> that the Fullerite mentality does not care to
> consider the general dimensional condition, and
> instead insists upon remaining in three dimensions.

Except it's your cultural bias to call it "three
dimensions", which is why it is you, and not I, who is
not free to see differently.  The gestalt switches
required, to jump between various meanings of "4D",
are embedded in Martian Math, among other places.
Once free to see differently, you come back to XYZ
thinking with fresh eyes, a little wiser perhaps.

> This is a sad thing, for the time representation of
> the single verticed simplex has gone overlooked by
> the real valued thinking era. The simplex can get us
> out of this mindset, but this realization will
> require a more general treatment. Simply come down in
> dimension to the plane and we see a three rayed
> coordinate system. In 1D this is a two rayed
> coordinate system, and then down beneath here is the
> one rayed system of unidirectional zero dimensional
> time; the grail whose buzz is all about now.
>  - Tim

I'd be more inclined to take you up on your offer if you
weren't starting with the premise that the non-Euclidean
geometry I'm teaching were somehow unfaithful to what
Fuller was promulgating.  I consider this a misreading.
On the other hand, it's an esoteric debate that we might
continue (probably elsewhere).  I'm sure we could hammer
out our differences, in time.