Translating 3D > 2D > 1D

[Rybo]

2D triangle = 2D area/opening
..{ 3 chordal edges }...

3D tetrahedron = 3D volume/openings
..{ 6 chordal edges }...

2D subdivided triangle = 1 + 3 = 4( solid? membrane )

2D Here and Now

..{ 3 chordal edges and 3 radial edges }..

3D subdivided tetrahedron = 1 + 4 =5( solid? mass )
..{ 6 chordal edges and 4 radial edges }..

2D subdivided triangle( nucleated ) = 6 internal surface angles
..{ 540 surface degrees }..

3D subdivided tetrahedron( nucleated ) = 12 internal surface and 12 internal volume angles

Subdivided tet 1/4 A mod

..{ 720 surface degrees }
..{ two 360 degree circles / four 180 degree surface triangles }
..{ plus 6, precessed, internal volume triangles }...
..{ precessed = at 90 degrees to each other...see graphic for internal volume triangles }...

Compare the above 12 + 12 angles to the below 24 chordal edges and 24 radial edges
3D > 2D > 1D

1D = linear number line 0, 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7 etc...
.{ <--------0--------> }.

2D = 4 parrallel number lines that correspond 2D, hexa or hepta-wave-
linear set.

Prime-wave Reflexive Revisoning
Sine-wave Landscape

...0..................6..
.....1.............5....( all primes fall on this line except 2 and 3 )
........2......4..........
...........3...............

.{ \/\/\/\ }...

and the 2D wave-linear number lines, translate into a 2D hexagonal as 6 number lines radiating from a common center point and this hexagonal format, all primes fall on two radial lines.

455.11 6 GRCs
..{ see hexagon }...

.{ \/
.{ /\ }...

3D = 12 or 24 radial lines that define four hexagons aka the cubo- octahedron or Vector Equilibrium ergo more omni-directional-like.

455.11 6 GRCs

..{ \/
>-----<
... /\ }......

In construction of the VE from four individual circles or hexagons, there is a total of 24 radial edges, and 24 chordal edges ergo Vector Equilibrium.

Compare this to the nucleated tetrahedron above with 12 internal surface angles and 12 internal volume angles

Rybo

[Rybo]

>.." ..{ plus 6, precessed, internal volume triangles }..."
Subdivided tet 1/4 A mod

Ha, three sets of precessed triangles sparked a new thought scenario for me, regarding space and time.

Let 'space' be one of those 6 triangles and the one diametrically opposing triangle be 'time'.

In this sense, we give 'space' and 'time' each a equilvalent vectorial value represented by a 2D triangle.

Now we bring these two, precessed triangles together until the point--at center of tetrahedron---is touching the diametrically opposing edge of tetrahedron.

Now the 'space' triangle and the 'time' triangle are sharing a common center of gravity.

If we do this with all three sets of two precessed triangles, I believe we arrive at a tetrahedron with its 4 surface triangles divided into 24 triangles.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/f001041.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_subdivision

Ok, so where to go from there?

Well, if take each central nodal-vertexial events in each triangle and move them to tetrahedral center---concave inversion process---we have balance between the tetrahedrons four(4) external nodal-vertexial events and the nuclear four(4) and we have 10 radial edges.

4 radial edges to each external nodal-vertexial event

6 radial edges to center of each of the 6 chordal edges..

However, if this process is done via previously constructed models then---i.e. 24 right triangle tetrahedra---then the number of radial edges is now 72.

[Rybo]

[QUOTE=Rybo;156874]>.." ..{ plus 6, precessed, internal volume triangles }..."
Subdivided tet 1/4 A modI need to clarify here that below and in reference to the link above, there are two or three differrent possible scenarios occurring.

Let 'space' be one of those 6 internal triangles and the one diametrically opposing and at 90 degrees triangle be 'time'.
In this sense, we give 'space' and 'time' each a equilvalent vectorial value represented by a 2D triangle.
Now we bring these two, precessed triangles together--towards each other until the point--at center of tetrahedron---is moved so it is touching the diametrically opposing edge of tetrahedron.

1) tetrahedron with 4 equilateral triangles--6 chordal edges---each being subdivided with 24 surface triangles but no radial lines inside the volume of the tetrahedron ergo there is 12 'space' surface edges and 12 'time' surface edges plus 3 'space' and 3 'time' chordal edges that define the tetrahedron.

If we do this with all three sets of two precessed triangles, I believe we arrive at a tetrahedron with its 4 surface triangles divided into 24 triangles.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_subdivision

2) the tetrahedron in the above scenario has original 4 nodal-vextexial events plus the new set four i.e. nodal-vertexial event in middle of each the foru equilateral triangles.

I suggested that, those latter 4 surface nodal-vertexial events are brought to the nuclear center of the tetrahedron. This is a concave inversion process and now we have 24 radials---12 space and 12 time---going to the nuclear center of the tetrahedron, plus 4 radials to the tetrahedrons original 4 nodal-vertexial event.

However, some of those 24 radials become congruent with each other, ergo it would appear, if only superficially, that, there is only 10 radials from the nuclear center. Any such congruency becomes more complicated because we may be trying to bond a 'space' radial edge to a 'time' radial edge. I dunno as it will take some actual graphics to determine that.

However, if this process is done via previously constructed models then---i.e. 24 right triangle tetrahedra---then the number of radial edges is now 72.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...igs/f1301.html

3) in the above Synergetics link we have the tetrahedron created by construction of 24 right angle tetraehdron. In this scenario we have 72 radial edges to a nuclear center instead of 24 or 10.

72, 24 or 10 radial edges, where each is divided evenly between 'space' and 'time' outer 6 chordal edges being half and half also, made begin to think about mass and ideas associated with Higgs boson giving mass to all particles.

72, 24 or 10 vs only 6 via the the minimal 3D volumetric polyhedron of Universe.

Rybo

[AntonioLao]

I think you are beginning a process for understanding the true abstract mathematics of topology.

[Rybo]

I'm just doing what I'm doing....others can call it what they want......the truths stated are self evident and I've many times made clear that my connection between geometry, physics, biology and other sciences is just that, speculation on my part of interrconnecting relationships that numbers may give us a clue to help find more cosmic truths....I dunno....just know what I believe...

Rybo

[AntonioLao]

The Peano curve is used to design the antennas of cell phones such that the length is maximized while its area is minimized in order to fit the small compact space. In theory the length of the Peano curve is infinite while the area is zero. Understanding this also allows researchers to understand Sierpinski carpet and Menger sponge. The former has infinite perimeter but zero area. The latter has infinite area but zero volume.

[Rybo]

"in theory" = metaphysical concept ergo what i've been stating for many years and in posts here at TOEQ.......the only existent infinity is the macro-micro non-occupied infinity that exists beyond our finite physical Universe.......

You do not yet appear to understand the relationship between spherical and Euclidean......

My recent view of Higgs or mass via 72, 24 or 10 radials emanating from a common center point is the highest imbalance of radials versas chordal edges( 6 ) that I've encountered in my 12 yrs of Syenrgetics extrapolations......

72 - 6 = 66

24 - 6 = 18
..{ 18 quarks and 18 anti-quarks }
..{ duo-tetrahpon cube has 36 chordal edges }...

10 - 6 = 4
..{ 5-fold icosahedron has 10 GrCPP's }....
Rybo

[AntonioLao]

Can your idea be used to create a successful deuteron cold fusion?

[Rybo]

I have no idea if any idea I have ever had can be used with any kind of physical "fusion".....I doubt if anybody else knows either as there is so many unknowns about Universe it makes difficult to know what is related and to what degree of relationship...........

I'm aware of many metaphysical fusings in my mathematical explorations tho I'm not sure understand any of them.......

Most are pretty simple and requires some effort and desire to find the truth. The truth is out there....Rybo

[AntonioLao]

The two theories that many scientists are interested in fusing are general relativity and quantum mechanics. Your ideas must either fit one of them but not both. If your ideas fit neither then you really don't have any physical idea that would be interesting for anyone to investigate further.