tar

Gees, You are not talking about what is/was/will be the case. You are talking about perspective as if one perspective is wrong and the other right. What I am saying is the thing is true if it fits and makes sense from both perspectives, or any perspective. Example. Consider a see through analog clock with an hour hand, a minute hand, and a sweep second hand, mounted on a glass wall. From the front the hands are moving in a clockwise direction, from behind the hands are moving in a counter clockwise direction. The truth is, however that the hand are moving in only one direction. The perspectives do not create a paradox, they validate the true direction in which the hands are moving. Or considering a neighboring star, 3 lys from here. There is only one instance of the star, extant in the universe at the moment. Yet it is true that it exists and is doing something now which we will not see for three years, and it is true that it shines in our sky tonight. But you take all observers of the star, near and far, imaginary or real and add up together what it is that they see, and the nature and truth of that star, and the distance between us and it, and us on Earth is realized when you put all the perspectives together. They do not contradict each other, they add up to the true fact. Regards, TAR

Gees, But Davidivad's take can mean different things, depending on how you read it. It says two different things and approaches the issue from the liar's paradox type direction where the truth winds up appearing indeterminant. It reminds me of Eastern religious philosophy where you are only wise if you don't know anything, and are only getting anywhere if you're tired of being tired of being tired, and other such backward insideout clever stuff that you can see as deep or trivial depending on how you look at it. My thinking is that truth is the stuff that was/is/will be the case, no matter what you say about it, or what you think about it. Its just the truth. Like the Sun, the moon, the stars, the rivers and the oceans, the weather, the history of the world, the nations of the world, the religions of the world, the fishes and the birds, poison ivy, peanut butter cups, and Bob being upset at the bonehead call that Seattle made at the end of the super bowl. Regards, TAR (or pretending to be upset to impress a nicely shaped gal)

Hans de Vries Imatfaal expressed nicely the sentiments I have and would leave it at that, as well said, except the point about not being able to come upon a value system that is objectively superior to another is an important one to explore...and talk about...and find agreement of "story", even with daesh followers. What I mean is that since 9-11 America and my way of life have been challenged and I have been demonized and equated, as an American, with the Devil. I am actually not the devil, and as far as Allah, or the creator of the universe, or the universe itself, or all the inhabitants of the universe are concerned I am just as equal a member of the place as anybody else. If I have enemies that wish to kill me and destroy my way of life, however, I need to kill them back. Along with the humanist point of view, I would have to say we need to come up with a story that can be lived by a young Muslim man in Syria or an old Shaman in the mountians, or a young Chinese girl near Mongolia, or a redneck in Alabama. It can not be just that our values as Westerners need to be adopted because they are Western values, it should be those aspects of our laws and practices that work, and are compatible with the laws and practice of other societies that work, should be merged, by agreeement and with understanding and "unbigoted" compassion for others, into a workable story that any human, of any age, of any background, could live, with pride, and happiness, and say "yes, I judge this way of life to be good." Your suggestion that Daesh needs to take on Western values is, after all, in and of itself a bigoted statement. We need to take on the workable values of Islam, and Islam needs to take on the workable values of Europe, and China needs to take one the workable values of the people in Tokyo, and we all need to learn something from the natives of South America...or whatever. As an unbigoted humanist, one should not be bigoted, nor call any large portion of the human race misguided...as if you know how to be, and everybody else has something to learn. Yes we have changed a lot, in the West in a short time. We had slaves in America 250 years ago. Earlier in my life it was only 200 years ago that we fought the war between the states. We had the crusades and Christians and Muslims were at war. We fought the Nazis in WWII and may have to bind together to fight daesh in a similar fashion, but hatred of the enemies of goodness is a sword that cuts both ways, and its good to remember that. Germany is currently the rock that holds Europe together, where it used to be the evilest snake around. Japan has spread quality control and technology and wealth around the planet, where it once was an Imperialist nightmare, and needed to be defeated, for peace and freedom to reign in the world. Things change, people change, Nations change. Horrors remain horrors, and evil only prevails, when good men do nothing. But being good is not a Western value alone. Its what good humans do. Whatever they believe, whatever nation they call their own. And I am sure, that good will win, in the end. Regards, TAR Wait. What am I talking about. The civil war was in 1865 and I was born in 1953, that is less than 100 years. I knew someone who was 100 1982. The world has changed alot just in my lifetime.

Right, just not my friend anymore. Can't hang with that bad guy. He/She/It is just no good for me. History. Not an option. Off the radar. No longer happening.

John Cuthber, Yes that about sums it up. Regards, TAR

Thread, Coming up on 10 months. Still hanging in there, in the "not an option" mode. Some craves from time to time pop up, but they are easy to just ignore most of the time. Just remind myself that it would be silly and useless to smoke a cigarette and get back into nicotine's grasp. I currently am just about free of that. I have found many of the other ways to get dopamine without the costs. Regards, TAR

This has mostly been done before, and unfortunately taken to extreme bolderdash.

I cut out the drawing in #114, leaving the shaded parts in, and if folded at the four points into 4 equal sections, you can tape the thing easily together as a tetrahedron, and see how the hexagonal planes are exactly intact. If you have a printer handy and a scissors and some scotch tape, its easy to do. 'course when I did it I redid the color and arrow directions as per the correct one. Perhaps I will repost that good one, without the pink Januses on it, for cutout purposes. Have something else to try that I might add as well, later. Actually, I already did the 3 point in the center in #113 "outside looking in" which you could printout and cutout and tape into a tetrahedron as well. So I don't need to do that again, except for shading the open part of the shields.

Thread, Cut a sphere up into the twelve sections (Januses) and laid them next to a proper drawing of the shaded open shields, with the arrows the right color and going the right direction. Interesting is that the surfaces of the Januses "fit" on the unshaded parts. Fit, when you "roll" them on the shape. It does not look it, but if you take a Janus and put it against the page at one end of an unshaded diamond and roll it to the other corner it gets there perfectly (or at least what looks close enough to be actual.) Same if you roll it from 120 to 120 degree corner. And the length of the edge of the unshaded diamond is 59 and the radius of the sphere is 59 so it seems that the unshaded parts should actually be the same area as the surface of the sphere (maybe.) Regards. TAR The twelve pink peices make up a sphere the same size as the green one shown whole.

Dr. Funkenstein, There was a point in your example where you required one to know what Bob was upset about, to make his upsetness an objective fact. I think you are forgetting that someone said he was upset, and even without knowing the reasons, Bob is still upset. There is an objective truthfullness to his condition as witnessed by the person who first learned of the upsetness, and passed it on. There is a saying with my signature that indicates that no matter what you know there is an objectively true world about you that includes persons who also know something. If you add together what person A knows (facts?) and what person B knows (facts?) you get a sum which is greater than the total facts known by either party alone. But the objective world that A knows includes B and vice-a-versa. Thus the mere statement of Bob's upsetness, is also an objective fact. Regards, TAR

Dr. Funkenstein, Well, good point. You cannot say anything about a thing if the thing is not already true and existant to say something about. So truth would have at least two important parts. First a true thing to say something about, and then a correct statement about the thing. For instance. To make a copy that is "true" to the original, you have to have an original to copy. Kant suggested something like this in Critique of Pure Reason, with his table judgements leading to a table of categories that laid out everything one could say about a thing in general. So when talking about truth, are we talking about the thing as it is, that we may not know directly, but only by its shadow, as in Plato's Cave, or are we talking about what we can say "in truth" about the thing? In either case, both the objective truth to say something about, and a subjective sayer to match the "fact" correctly with a true statement about it, are important to the definition of truth. Regards, TAR

MomentTheory, According to some, there is nothing new under the Sun. Others might say that new things happen all the time. Some say the universe is already determined. That it can not do anything than what it already knows how to do and is already destined to be. I do not believe that life on this Earth, backs up that kind of thinking. I do not believe that the internet and Iphones are something that were determined by the shape of a hydrogen atom There are things, many things that emerge, that do not have the characteristics of the components that make it up. Like a hurricane. Made of water, and heat and air. How can you suggest that the universe already knew itself, before there was 2nd and 3rd generation stars capable of creating the heavy elements that make up significant parts of the Earth. If what you imagine was real then I could see it and touch it and feel it, and know it, without your suggestion. If what you imagine was real then the scientific method could be applied to it, and it could be agreed upon as true by more than one individual in more than one way. In this climate, suggesting that you know a secret that no one else knows, is a sure sign that what you are suggesting has only validity in your imagination, and not in any one elses model of the world. And suggesting that you know a prophesy fails in two ways, according to this way of thinking, that I have just suggested. One, it suggests that what has not yet happened, not yet emerged is already done. Which is silly, impossible and actually quite useless. Two, it suggests that what is in your imagination is going to happen, as a suprise to every other human being on the planet. Which is silly, impossible and actually quite useless. Regards, TAR

Thread, The open shield arrangement is good because it shows you where you cannot place a diamond, because it would overlap another on the sphere. In the 2d renditions of the sphere given by the equilateral triangle, the sides of the large triangle actually fold in half to touch themselfves around a three point. The use of the open shields shows where you cannot physically fit a fourth diamond because three 120 degree angles is all the three point has to offer. Anyway, ignore the color mistakes I made in the arrows, and check out how things look when you grey out the "unused" portions of the shields. (Not really unused because they show where the diamonds touch the next diamond on the sphere.) Also, I found this interesting triangle on the "Outside Looking Toward center" (posted yesterday) depiction using the "open shields" Look at the triangle below the red 4. It has a little r in it. It has these characteristics. The raidus of the sphere I am depicting is 59 (sixtiests of a inch) the diameter is 118, the circumference is 371 and 1/4C would be 93. The equator exactly bisects the 4 equatorial diamonds, so the length of the long axis of the diamond, on the surface of the sphere, should be 93. This also is what I measure on the depiction (although there might be a little confirmation bias, my lines being thick and slightly inaccurately angled). So, two interesting points. These 30 60 90 triangles can be found in the same places on both the 2D depiction and the 3D sphere, and in both cases are exactly 30 120 30 (two 30 60 90 triangles). Do not know yet what that means, in terms of where the depiction is accurate and where it deviates, but it is interesting to note that 93 divided by 59 is 1.58. Double this is 3.16 which is in the neighborhood of Pi. Regards, TAR

MomentTheory, "Perhaps "we" (pre solid form) created a machine designed to survive the collapse which holds onto our previous discoveries for the advancement of knowledge during the next expansion, and perhaps that machine, is DNA." Perhaps, but I think we are doing this for the first time. Regards, TAR

neptumber, I did not know what an L system fractal was until a half hour ago, so I probably am not one of the parties to whom you addressed this question, but my guess is the answer is, yes you can, and determine the rules, by describing what happens at each branch. I believe this guess is correct because the plant formed by following a particular rule at each node. This is probably constrained by geometries and the crystal shapes of the elements which compose the plant. Primarily carbon, as carbon is the base element of carbon based life. The general form of the carbon ring is a hexagon, which you will find many of in any organic chemisty book. Also, by noting the 4 intersecting hexagonal planes defined by the cubic octahedron, or the spherical rhombic dodecahedron, you might make a good guess that space is liable to be laid out in a manner, and a plant is liable to make a rule based decision at a branch point, based on a hexagonal notation. Angles like 45, 90, 120 and 60 and close multiples and divisions of such, would therefore not be surprising to find in the plant, and thusly in your rules. In terms of your notation, in determining a string of characters to describe the rule, I have an untried hypothesis that you might be able to use a system I came up with last month. The system includes a two letter notation for each of the twelve general directions that a branch could take. (actually 11 usable directions, since the stem just came from one.) The notation would have to doctored up a bit, for your purposes, since I used colors and capital and small letters, but you could use the alternate method of just labeling each of the distinct twelve directions as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, and 12, or A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K and L, or if its ok to consider r and R different characters, RY, RG, Br, yr, gr, Rb, gY, yb, yG, BY, BG, and gb. As you can see, each letter appears exactly 6 times, discribing its own hexagonal plane, so the notation system is clean an meaningful. For your distances you have the cms and you can drop the angles and replace them with the direction in which the branch goes. Might work out. Or you might be able to massage the scheme to fit your purposes. Regards, TAR

Thread, While the blindman and the elephant story is true, and the liar's paradox is true, and it is true that philosophers argue over what is true, and logicians struggle to define true statements, and the observations of scientists and the agreed upon axioms in mathematics and physics are true, I think String Junky says it best. "In science and other logical endeavours I think 'truths' are evolving logical anchor-points that we use in our pursuit towards an accurate description of the world around us." This goes along with my definition of truth in which one would use two litmus tests. 1. Does it match the world. 2. Is it true (does it match) in more than one way. Regards, TAR

Thread, Beautiful layout of the open shields came to me this morning (actually yesterday, or Friday morning). (open shields are made only of lines one diameter or one radius long, excluding the two short lines indicating the "open" part of the shield.) Presented here looking at the sphere from the outside. The old picture of the triangle is perfectly valid, as a stamp image, or as looking at the sphere from the center of the sphere, outward. Studying the new layout of the spheres gave me two insights. One, what looks wrong at first, is not, and two, my confusion with the green and blue hexagonal planes comes from the fact that the green is not continuous in the presentation, and is divided up into three thirds of a great circle. This combined with the fact that I switched 11 and 12 conceptually, in terms of how the direction of increasing degrees on the plane leaves the diamond. In the case of 11 blue goes up and to the right (conceptually going with the first layout I presented with the four equatorial diamonds, the four diamonds touching the North Pole, and the four touching the South,) whereas in the case of 12 the blue goes down and to the right and the green goes down and to the left.) This is because 11 and 12 are directly opposed and the blue and green planes cross at both 11 and 12. Interesting to note that 11 and 12 are therefore the only two diamonds that are not included on either the red or yellow hexagonal plane. In my original convention I tried to take this potential confusion into consideration by having each color plane have three diamonds with a capital letter, indicating "heading North" and three with a little letter indicating "heading South" and then added another convention where the order of the two colors addressed in a diamond would be the one whose arrow was running SW to NE or NE to SW and the second letter would be that of the color running SE to NW or NW to SE. While I am sticking to these conventions, it is easy to get fouled up with your directions because once you leave the vantage point of looking at diamond 1 with diamond 2 up and to your right, the ideas of up and down and left and right, change as you proceed the 360 degrees around the plane. Again, enough words. Study these pictures of looking at the sphere from the inside and the outside, and after a few minutes, what looked wrong at first, will make perfect sense, once you get inside/outside, up/down, left/right, clockwise/counterclockwise, North/South, and East/West all put in their proper places. Regards, TAR

Thread, Here I have taken a toothpick cut to the length of one diameter of my 1/4lb sphere (118 sixtieth of an inch, almost 2inches) and made a cross on the paper, which is identical to such a straight line on the sphere, except for, on the sphere, the line is curved as a segment of a great circle around the center of the sphere. I then proceeded to make six such crosses, which is exactly how many of such crosses there are on the sphere. On the sphere the ends of the crosses touch exactly, as exhibit by the Spherical Rhomic Dodecahedron. They do not touch exactly on a 2d surface, because the 90 degree angles and the 120 degree angles work out differently on a sphere than they do on paper. But here is a nice application of the 12 segments of the sphere, and the numbering system I have stuck to in this thread. The 15 degree grids of the diamonds of the SRD have been drawn on the 2d surface, making sort of an open diamond shape. The twelve sections of the sphere, numbered 1 to 12 are circled in black (as there are some duplicate numbers so you can imaginarily wrap the crosses around to touch the proper end of the next cross in the proper orientation.) The grids are drawn from one side of the diamond on the SRD to the other, and with this you can visualize the distortion, and thus the correction when seeing the grid on the diamond, the shield shape on the equilateral triangle, and the "open" shield shape here. Regards, TAR note the alternation between three points and four points is exactly the same as on the SRD. Every four point has four radius long line each extending to a three point. Every three point, has three radius long lines, each extending to a four point.

Or I can just keep posting the ground I am covering and people can take it for what it is, old or new.

Thread, I was searching around the web today to see what, if anything is "new" about this thread. Every component of the thread is pretty much already noticed in one way or another, and in that there is nothing new here. After all a shape is a shape and its geometry is not dictated by imagination. The four hexagonal planes have already been noticed. The Spherical Rhombic Dodecahedron has been know for a long time. Same with the cubic octahedron, the close packed spheres and everything else mentioned in the thread. Projections of the Earth onto tetrahedra and equilateral triangles has already been done. In that this thread is just having fun discovering all those things for myself, (ourselvers). Where I have not found anything exactly alike is in three areas. My late December insight of labeling every point on the sphere in accordance to the 360 degrees of each of the 4 hexgonal plane circles. The Sedge. Finding that dividing up the diamonds into grids can be exactly matched on an equilateral triangle. Other projections of the globe onto a tetrahedron I found were similar, but did not exactly match and use the same scheme. I think they are all fine, but the difference I see with this scheme is that its a projection of the sphere onto a 2d rendition of a sphere, not the projection of the sphere, onto a flat surface. What I mean is that this scheme has a grid that can be transferred exactly from the 2d version to the surface of the sphere, or from the surface of the sphere to the 2d triangle. It's like projecting the surface arrangement of the sphere, with a light at the center of the sphere onto a larger sphere. All the symmetries and relationships are maintained. All the points on the tetrahedron could be named with exactly the same 360 degree four hexagonal plane scheme I presented in December. This I just demostrated by drawing my grids of the SRD's diamonds, onto the equilateral triangle. I could not find any images on the web of the equilateral triangle divided up into the shields exactly like that. It surprises me that I do not find it, because it is so simple and beautiful, I would have expected to find it. My conclusion, is that I may have, over the last month or so, actually made a contribution to humanity. Which is something I have wanted to do for 5 years now, starting one day when I suddenly realized I was 56 years old and if I was going to make a contribution to humanity, I better start soon. I had begun with CDs and books trying to learn Arabic, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, and Hindi, on an investigation to find the meaning behind language. I have, as you can tell, sort of switched my focus, playing with clay balls, and these twelve sections of the sphere (cube, octahedron,tetrahedron) and thinking about the ways this scheme helps understand the way the geometry of the world is, as well as the way we internalize the world and build an analog model of it, in the synapes and structures of our brains. This particular post is a question to anyone reading this. Are you finding this particular investigation as fun and interesting and rewarding as I am? Am I doing something here? Or am I just going over old ground? Regards, TAR

Spherical Rhombic Dodecahedron divisions made of Earth and transferred to the exactly related shields of the twelve divisions of the tetrahedron, and placed on the Sedge pattern in accordance to the scheme being discussed. Angles and distances maintained with minimal distortion.

Thread, I am really liking this scheme. Built out into a really interesting hexagonal plane with several sorts of hexogonal symetries. Allowed me to verify that my green and blue are correct (still did something wrong, but have not isolated it yet.) And allowed me to pick a way to orient it nicely to the globe, with North up and South down, and the equator through the middle. Flipped the page over to get the right "outside" orientations, to match my 10 degree divided ping pong ball, with 1 showing the red plane up and to the right, and the yellow up and to the left. And 11 showing blue going up and to the right and green going up and to the left. (0-360 in each case.) Will make a nicer one later, have to go to bed, but wanted to show this because it allows for the projection of the sphere onto 2D with litle distortion, and keeping distances and angles fairly true. Same scheme allows projecting the surface of a sphere onto a cube or tetrahedron or octahedron (or Sedge), and even to give a name to every direction in the galaxy (from here, or from the center). Just a darn nice scheme, that looks nicer and nicer the more I play with it. Thread, Woke up and was looking back in the thread a few posts at the 8 sided figure I made in response to Commander's challenge. It reminded me of an arrangement I made two nights ago (but did not post), trying to figure out why you can draw a triangle on a sphere, but not larger than the equator, but the whole sphere is in the shape of an equilateral triangle. I had started with the three lines each a diameter long (may be a third of the circumference, I am not sure yet) and thought if this was a triangle then a six sided figure made on the surface of a sphere with the same three lines drawn on it, made by drawing a great circle line on each side of each of the original lines, of the same length, would be a slightly smaller triangle. I kept making a smaller and six side figure (Like your thumb and first two finger with thick gloves on, your thumb and first to fingers without gloves on, just the bones, and then three toothpicks touching at one end and making a triangle with the other,) 'til I wound up with the exact three tooth picks coming from the other end of the sphere. If you are have trouble visualizing, take the thumb and first two fingers of your right hand an make a little one inch equilateral triangle with the tips of your fingers. Do the same with your left hand. Then put the thumb of your right hand in the triangle you made on you left and keep going until your right thumb hits the crouch between your left thumb and your left pointer. Anyway, made me realize that the 2d equilateral triangle has yet another purpose. If its marked out with the twelve sections of the sphere, and you want to do something mentally with the sphere, do the thing with the triangle, which is the surface of the sphere, and then mark the thing you did on the surface of a sphere laid out with a numbered spherical rhombic dodecahedron pattern. It will be exactly right, down to the precision with which you marked the surface of the sphere and the equilateral triangle. Regards, TAR or vice a versa

MomentTheory, You talk about extraterestrials already evolving to a point way beyond where we are. This is possible, but you make it sound like they got so evolved as to create us and our situation. This is counter intuitive. If we would need some greatly evolved lifeform to create us, who created the creatly evolved life form? So if the universe decided to take a look at itself by having life emerge through DNA, then that is exactly what occured here on Earth. We don't require an outside party. And any outside party that we would require, would in turn require an outside party to put IT together. So it is more reasonable to assume we grabbed life and form and structure from a universe that was otherwise headed toward entropy, and passed it on...through our DNA, than to require a more evolved life form, to start us. If we can not do it by ourselves, then neither can they. Regards, TAR

Thread, OK, here is the finished product. Same scheme, with the 360 degrees on the four hexagonal planes, but instead of the 12 disconnected diamonds showing the scheme in 2d we have now 12 connected shields, so there there is no question how the one point relates to another. The triangle actually folds in four pieces and if you make the three points touch, you have your tetrahedron (or sphere). Its upside down and backward, being a stamp of the spherical rhombic dodecahedron inspired Sedge, but I am wondering if it works if you connect the points by pulling them up, so that you are looking at the inside of the sphere. Not sure but that might be good. Notice, because of the dual nature of the figure we have been working with, that you can see the 6 squares and 8 triangles of the cubic octahedron. I give you TAR Spherical Coordinates. Regards, TAR Thread, The 2d triangle layout is what you would see on the inside of the sphere, should the outside be layed out like a spherical rhombic dodecahedron with the diamonds. (more or less) The pattern is the same. I took my clay and cut it in quarters and made 1/4-3/8 inch thic equilateral triangles and drew the shields and hexagonal planes on it, as in the last post. Then I squeezed the bases of the triangles to lengthen the short lines and then rounded the point a bit to shorten that line, so the shields where diamonds and the quarters were in the shape depicted earlier, two making a Pacman. Then I put the Pacmen together and formed it into a sphere, (after putting the inside lines of each piece on the outside exactly where they were). Then I cut open the sphere into the triangle. Regards, TAR Ok, not a finished product. I screwed up and crossed the green and blue planes somewhere along the line. I absolutely did not want to do that, since I was setting the conventions, they had to stay correct. So, as pretty as it is, I have to withdraw it, because its wrong...or it's right, and the 12 pictures I took of each of the twelve diamonds laid out in 10 degree grids, is wrong... Let's do this. Call it a draft, with the basic idea, but with blue and green crossed up.

Thread, Summary of thread so far, in a picture. 1. Six pennies around a central penny forming a hexagon. (not shown) 2. 12 balls dense packed around a central ball forming 4 hexagonal planes and 3 square planes. (cubic octahedron)(Pink) 3. Position of twelve balls placed on the surface of a sphere. (Spherical Rhombic Dodecahedron, light green) 4. Same twelve sections oriented to a cube. (Brown cube)Leading to the grid divisions and then the numbering of the divisions according to the 360 degrees of each of the hexagonal planes. (not shown) 5. The twelve sections placed on an octahedron (not shown) and then a tetrahedron. (Dark green) 6. The tetrahedron rounded into a Sedge (brown one faced, one edged, two verticed item on bottom right.) 7. Stamp image of the Sedge laid out in two dimensions. (central image) 8. Top equalateral triangle rotated down to lower left to form one large equilateral triangle, which can be drawn on a sphere with three straight lines along three great circles eminating from one point (possibly one diameter long each). (light green) Regards, TAR (all clay figures same volume made with 1/4lb of clay, exception is 13 ball arrangement, 12 balls made from 1/4lb of clay, one central dark pink ball presumeably 1/48lb from different stick)