Frank is very deceptive and disingenuous with his comparisons between Synergetic Geometry and his very pedestrian cube. He does change the value of the edge of his cube when it is convenient. Say that the edge of cube has the length "a". It can be divided into 6 of Zubeks clunky blocks or "Zukes". It can also be divided into 72 RBFuller A&B modules. In turn, each Zuke can be made from 12 A&B modules. Zubek hates this so he just changes his cube to "a/2".Seriously, how childish can one get?
@dekay5555555 edges are irrelevant you can use roman numerals if you wish, cube is a cube one = 72 the other = 48 they both are vol. 8 cubes, we have beans pour them in to the cube and let's see, they are same and what ever edges you put on it it does not changes the fact. I was the only guy putting rational vol. to both cubes and interpret the numbers via models. IT WAS NEWER ACHIEVED BEFORE, you sure never knew what is 2.666.. it is 2 cubes and 2/3 in both systems 2.6666../24 =.111..
@ElusiveCube Here we go. Frank, the edge is the letter "a" for the cube under discussion. It can be sectioned into 72 A&B module forms. More simply you could section the cube with your 1/6 clunky blocks. Each block would be 1/6 of the edge "a" cube. Each 1/6 clunky block is then composed of 12 A&B modules forms. A very simple and logical comparison/ You then say NO my cube is "a/2" and therefore 48 clunky blocks make the edge "a" cube, and A&B cannot build your system. That is all you do.
Frank muddles up Synergetics on purpose. He thinks he has discovered something unique and it turns out Synergetics is a more consistent sytem. Rendering his rather moot and really childish. A serious mathematician or geometer knows Zubek clunky blocks for what they are. People who study Synergetic geometry have shown Zubke over and over how his clunky baby blocks are composed of A&B modules, RBFuller's concentric hierarchy is completely consistent with them and that gets Frank's ire.
Dick, do you get the C.H. now?? Do you get the L.C.D. Do you get the do more with less concept? Do you get what is diversity and how it is lacking in the subject you devoted decades to understand? Do you see the end of -S-??
Do you see how -S- can not model with one single sphere now, do you see they have to have least two sized spheres to demonstrate. How all these major aspects of modeling have escaped you and others, any explanation?
@randomeshelter Who have give you premission, who decides that, or it does not matter. Who from any geometers would agree on this. Well in a serious system R IS R and D is dIAMETER. -s- employs to many spheres, to many strategies, to many conversions TO COMPLIKATED. Ask Adrian perhaps the reason he left the -S- list.
Where rigor is absent in -S- freedom of thinking is promoted as the correct approach. When rigor is demonstrated by -Z- system freedom of thinking is promoted as the correct approach by -S-. Funny how the exact science is promoted by wishy washy approaches as to be unique and original, when in fact seriously flawed. These systems
are just never in tune. Of course they should never be in tune, because one is always wrong where the other always right.
Frank is very deceptive and disingenuous with his comparisons between Synergetic Geometry and his very pedestrian cube. He does change the value of the edge of his cube when it is convenient. Say that the edge of cube has the length "a". It can be divided into 6 of Zubeks clunky blocks or "Zukes". It can also be divided into 72 RBFuller A&B modules. In turn, each Zuke can be made from 12 A&B modules. Zubek hates this so he just changes his cube to "a/2".Seriously, how childish can one get?
dekay5555555 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@dekay5555555 edges are irrelevant you can use roman numerals if you wish, cube is a cube one = 72 the other = 48 they both are vol. 8 cubes, we have beans pour them in to the cube and let's see, they are same and what ever edges you put on it it does not changes the fact. I was the only guy putting rational vol. to both cubes and interpret the numbers via models. IT WAS NEWER ACHIEVED BEFORE, you sure never knew what is 2.666.. it is 2 cubes and 2/3 in both systems 2.6666../24 =.111..
ElusiveCube 2 months ago
@ElusiveCube Here we go. Frank, the edge is the letter "a" for the cube under discussion. It can be sectioned into 72 A&B module forms. More simply you could section the cube with your 1/6 clunky blocks. Each block would be 1/6 of the edge "a" cube. Each 1/6 clunky block is then composed of 12 A&B modules forms. A very simple and logical comparison/ You then say NO my cube is "a/2" and therefore 48 clunky blocks make the edge "a" cube, and A&B cannot build your system. That is all you do.
dekay5555555 2 months ago
Frank muddles up Synergetics on purpose. He thinks he has discovered something unique and it turns out Synergetics is a more consistent sytem. Rendering his rather moot and really childish. A serious mathematician or geometer knows Zubek clunky blocks for what they are. People who study Synergetic geometry have shown Zubke over and over how his clunky baby blocks are composed of A&B modules, RBFuller's concentric hierarchy is completely consistent with them and that gets Frank's ire.
dekay5555555 2 months ago
Dick, do you get the C.H. now?? Do you get the L.C.D. Do you get the do more with less concept? Do you get what is diversity and how it is lacking in the subject you devoted decades to understand? Do you see the end of -S-??
Do you see how -S- can not model with one single sphere now, do you see they have to have least two sized spheres to demonstrate. How all these major aspects of modeling have escaped you and others, any explanation?
ElusiveCube 1 year ago
Go for it, Frank. I would never stand in the way of progress. Good luck in your journey. You're okay in my book.
Dick
randomeshelter 1 year ago
Comment removed
randomeshelter 1 year ago
@randomeshelter Who have give you premission, who decides that, or it does not matter. Who from any geometers would agree on this. Well in a serious system R IS R and D is dIAMETER. -s- employs to many spheres, to many strategies, to many conversions TO COMPLIKATED. Ask Adrian perhaps the reason he left the -S- list.
ElusiveCube 1 year ago
@randomeshelter wishi-washy approach = synergetics
ElusiveCube 1 year ago
Where rigor is absent in -S- freedom of thinking is promoted as the correct approach. When rigor is demonstrated by -Z- system freedom of thinking is promoted as the correct approach by -S-. Funny how the exact science is promoted by wishy washy approaches as to be unique and original, when in fact seriously flawed. These systems
are just never in tune. Of course they should never be in tune, because one is always wrong where the other always right.
ElusiveCube 1 year ago