[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Kent;

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Fuller’s work is at best pseudo science. Using it in your publications only diminishes the value of you own concepts. You might say it’s just another alligator in the swamp.

Reality is simple; it’s people who make it complex. When you know enough that you can tell a PhD he’s full of $&!%, then write another book. Do you need any help?

Dear David:

Reprise on the Fuller quote (above) that you are responding to:

"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics.


"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geometrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...

"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics.

We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'" - R Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17
_____________________________________

As far as I can discern here, Dave, what Fuller is qualifying, is that, although a geometric point does not exist, it is not square, it is round. Otherwise the motion of the square point A, to generate a Straight Line A ------>B, begins a sequence of unnatural cubism, proceeding all the way up to the 4-D 'supercube'.

It seems to me that Fuller is reminding us that the perpendicular - right angle - Euclidien law of (the extrapolation of) dimensions, can and does proceed from any shape at all; all of the three recognized dimensions of space being 4 dimensional and of a quasi infinite number of shapes and sizes.
P.S. David: Have you ever looked up Buckminster Fuller in 'Who's Who'? The majority of entries have a few paragraphs of fine print - whereas Fuller's achievements fill the page. He is not a man to be underestimated. 'Psuedoscientist'? I think not. I am surprised to hear a man of your learning say such a thing about Buckminster Fuller. Do you disagree with my interpretation of his intended meaning, in the subjected issue of cube vs spheroid, as applied to the shape of the (non existent) geometric point?

Best regards
- RP