Volume Ratios (Part 1 of 2)

A quick flip through the simple polyhedra defined by IVM sphere packing. Slides and talking.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• python
• povray
• geometry
• synergetics
• polyhedrons
• polyhedra

[urnerk]

@ElusiveCube VE = 1 interval which you could call 1F, the check being 10*F*F+2, for the number of balls packing around a nuclear ball in a cuboctahedral conformation (CCP), with F = the layer, so 1, 12, 42, 92... with 20*F**3 (F to the 3rd power) being the corresponding volume. This is all relative to the 1 interval tetrahedron being unit volume, starting point of Synergetics. Tet explodes to Amods of 1/24, add Bmod of 1/24. 2A (left & right) + 1B (left or right) = Mite. Coupler = 8 Mites.

[ElusiveCube]

@urnerk Firs of all 0- F means no solid these are your words and JB's words. Second what you call canonical is not -0 Fr. but 2-F. VE = 1 interval 20 tet. vol. yes correct they are 1/8 of yours.So again what you say here is not canonical rather 2-F. as demonstrated by spheres as well by modules. Since you do not have a 9 module cube 72/8 = 9 you do not have canonical cube,nor cubeoctah=60. nor 12 module octah. nor 3 mod. reg. tet. just of the top of my head there is more. I do have all those .

[urnerk]

@ElusiveCube the zero-frequency concentric hierarchy is what we call "canonical" meaning it's timeless and sizeless relative to Spaceship Earth, or a breadbox for that matter. With frequency comes energy involvement and the inevitable fall into Time (the realm of half-lives vs Angle). It doesn't pay to debate the names of the canonical hierarchy in terms of relative frequency except for the direction it indicates: towards bigger, towards smaller (in/out/around). VE of 1 interval = volume 20.

[ElusiveCube]

@urnerk OK I stay with the oblate octah. or double corner or solid kite. but this is not about the names the relation demonstrated by your own modules does not confirms the 4 to 1 relation unless frequencies are mixed up. This is clear to all who have seen the video.

[urnerk]

@ElusiveCube your arguments would be more coherent if you were to separate the naming issue from the computation issue, as I said before. That you would resent a mathematical definition weakens your position, as mathematics is replete with new names for things, often specific to an author. The oblate octahedron, space-filling, has languished in relative obscurity. Penrose has a Kite, along with his Dart. Conway has his game of Sprouts. The list goes on and on. Coupler vol = 1 tetravolume.

[ElusiveCube]

@urnerk New names to a preexisting ones are meaningless just complicates the already complicated. Yes everything is open to dispute that is the science, I know the calculations are correct the relations among the solids are incorrect. This is done with your own modules, there is also no dispute that what I demonstrating with YOUR blocks is at the same freq. demonstrating always 2 to 1 ratio no matter what freq. one looks at.

Coupler is 2.5 that of the cubeoctah. build by the same modules.

[urnerk]

@ElusiveCube you need to separate your dislike of Fuller's names for things, from your claims that his computations were incorrect, though he was admittedly mortal and some mistakes, other typos, made it into print. He took care of some of those mistakes himself, but others live on and are the subject of comment from time to time. Bob Gray has a list of errata for Synergetics. I'm sure there are some other compilations. However the basics of the concentric hierarchy are not open to dispute.

[ElusiveCube]

@kirbyurner A oblate octahedron is a oblate octahedron it does not need a name it already have one related and derived from a reg. octahedron. Focus on labels, relations, magnitudes, all of which are defined incorrectly by synergetics. Why don't you collaborating with someone not brainwashed but someone fresh, new and original like my self. I helping you to straighten the definitions you trying to promote as a educational material. Hey Rybo is still with you so be nice to him he is loyal .

[ElusiveCube]

@kirbyurner No Bucky nonsense have been here for least 6 decades. I know Bucky from you or synergetics did not know of him before.

[kirbyurner]

@ElusiveCube whassup guy? I say in the video who help me with those models. Should have tacked on some credits, I'll do it here: Russell Chu and Trevor Blake. I think Jim Lehman might've showed up while we were making 'em, but it was a long time ago (many years) so my memories may be confused. So zubek modules have been around for 6 decades? Wow, I didn't know you were that old of a guy. Did you know Bucky then? He died in 1983.