|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
 Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: The Structure of Number |
  |
|
OK, I've been playing this 'Numbers game' for awhile now,
so now it's about time we started tying it all together.
There's now three 'Number' articles on TreeIncarnation.com.
The latest one is called Synergetic Number.
For a brief introduction to the articles, go to The Structure of Number
Or click the Images below to go directly to the articles.
 
This latest article has taken myself and Fintan a few weeks
to get it into a digestible format. I can't promise that it'll
be easy to take in, mainly because it's such a big change
from how we classically think of number and mathematics.
And because we're tying it into a lot of synergetic geometry.
Theres a lot in this one. Any related comments, suggestions
or further observations would be great to have posted here.
I talked about this one being a bit of a breakthrough, well it's
now looking like that's just the start of it. 
As we keep going with this stuff, it'll be a good idea to post updates,
edits and any related bits and pieces that might be useful in here.
Peace, Out 
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 3889
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: Nice 9 |
|
|
Well, it's great to see this finally posted online.
And congrats to Just0 for a breakthrough.
I recommend just jumping straight in at the thrid article on
Synergetic Number and then backtrack to the other two.
This is indeed a significant breakthrough.
It's not every day that someone questions the basis of Number itself!
We take number for granted. It's a label we hang on oranges, or
on apples, or on dollars -even cents. One, two, twenty-five.
How much? How many?
But what is One-ness, or Two-ness?
And what if Number is the very structure of reality?
Now you're on to it!
This goes to the core of the issue and explains our opposing thumbs!
Our hands are constructed on the base-10 'decimal' system.
Ten digits in all - Two reflecting pairs of four-fingers and a thumb.
The thumbs are 0 and 9 and the fingers are the numbers 1 to 8.
Maths has never been this easy, or revolutionary.
Another rEvolutionary idea.
When you look at 9 you are looking at something similar to what you see
if you hold two mirrors at an angle to each other so that there is a
never-ending cascade of reflections. When you chop up 9 you can
make an entire universe out of the parts!
Who'da' thunk 9 was so important? 
| Quote: | Just0: Let's explore this new synergetic understanding to number.
Before we had been using number as a kind of label where 1 is used as
the starting point (much like a 'building block'). Now we see that the
whole (9) is where we must start.
http://treeincarnation.com/articles/SynergeticNumber.htm |
So this is a holistic/wholistic understanding of number and of reality.
Somebody tell Neo not to call himself the One. He is the Nine. 
| Quote: | Just0: It occurred to me that synergetic geometry seemed to
correlate with another interesting subject: the Mayan Calendar.
The numbers that were discovered to be integral to calculating the
time periods involved in this ancient calendric divination system
coincided with some core numbers used in Fuller's geometry.
Those numbers being 13 and 20.
http://treeincarnation.com/articles/SynergeticNumber.htm |
Now this really got my attention. Just0 told me in private that he
thought he was on to the reason why the Maya chose 13 and 20
as key numbers explaining the evolution of consciousness. And
that the answer also tied into Bucky Fuller's vector equilibrium!
And so it does. Details in the Synergetic Number article. Outstanding!
Well if you're on a roll.... then go for it.
And so we also get a new insight into Pi.
Even if you have been put off mathematics for life because of the
dead excuse for maths that is taught in our 'education' system,
then check this stuff out.
It grounds the TreeIncarnation I-O Sphere inside-out mirror plane ideas
in some terrific new insights into number, and it moves us along to the
path to a Grand Unified Theory.
There's a LOT more mileage in this....
Nice 1 
or rather...
Nice 9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
urbanspaceman
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 296
Location: London , UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have no clue what the significance of these patterns are, or where the hell this is all leading. But its fascinating none the less!
I'm a visual person, so I always find it very hard to pick up patterns in a string of numbers (I don't know how some people do it). Geometry is a much easier way to digest math for me. Only with a picture do I feel I really 'get it'. I really liked your diagram of the two hands, and it got me thinking: it makes plenty of sense for the cultures of the past to come up with a number system based on 10, since we all have 10 fingers to count with. But what if we had a set of symbols for numbers that reminded us that our fingers are mirror images of each other? You've already done this, just0, using positive and negative numbers. But for the hell of it, and to drive the point home, I thought I'd try and see what it looked like if the numbers were literally mirror images of each other.
I did a quick search on wikipedia on number notations from different cultures, and I noticed that in Hindi the 3 and the 6 are mirrored images of each other, which are in the correct places (the ring fingers). Did they pick up on this intuitively?
So then all the double digit numbers that add up to 9 show up instead as mirrored pairs.
I swapped the numbers in your table that compared the numbers 20 and 9, just to see if the patterns were easier to see.
Maybe, in a sense, this is in a large degree what algebra is -- swapping symbols around for the same things, looking for a pattern to present itself.
Again, I'm still confused where this investigation is leading, but I think you are proving there is something very fundamental about mirroring, the double spin, and inherent twoness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: 20 : 20 |
|
|
Good stuff Urbanspaceman
Displaying the numbers like that is an excellent idea, having
the positive and minus values works for the usuall mathematics,
but what you've got there gives us a way of seeing how they are
mirrors of each other, you can get the feel for it visually.
Nice
Well spotted with the mirrored 6 and 3 here, I noticed that
the hindu symbol for the 9 kind of resembles a key here too.
I do think these mirrored relationships have been picked up
intuitively all over the place. I'm not shure if I mentioned
it in any of the articles but if you look at your keyboard....
What numbers correspond to symbols for concave and convex i.e. ( ) ??
Thats a very nice way of displaying these numbers, more interesting patterns.
This 4.4 'axis point' came up in the article where I left off,
but it was in the form 5.5 (or -4.-4).
But this axis point now seems to be very much related to the polyhedra
that lie on the central 'plane' between concave and convex. Concave
and convex being geometrically represented as the Ocathedron and VE
respectively.
Those central geometry's are right on the mirror plane, and they are
the dual polyhedra called Icosahedron and Dodecahedron.
I over complicated it with some of the ratios (S-Pi and S-e might be
pushing it ), but maybe If I throw it all out there together some of it
will sink in.
This is 20 : 20 vision through geometry. lol. And as fintan has just
pointed out:
| Quote: | Fintan: The 12:20 and 20:12 crossover is clearly the explanation of the
function of stereo vision, and the corpus collosum crossover in the brain. |
And theres plenty more to be explored
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
urbanspaceman
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 296
Location: London , UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's exactly what I was doing, just making the patterns more visual in the numbers for myself. I don't always have the "beautiful mind" to pick up on them.
But certainly you can learn to do math with these numbers with practice, once your brain stopped seeing a backward 3, but instead automatically thought '6'.
| just0 wrote: | | What numbers correspond to symbols for concave and convex i.e. ( ) ?? |
I'm not sure. I wasn't sure which numbers you had assigned to concave and convex, the negative or the positive ones. If, for example, positive numbers represent convex, why? Or is it arbitrary?
Also your use of the words inside/outside in relation to left/right brain and separation/integration. Not that these terms are right and wrong, as long as we agree on definitions, but your usage of inside/outside does throw me a bit. I've often thought of outward looking people as the materialists, the ones who can only analyze parts and who are totally blind to the underlying unity of things. It is the inward looking people who are the idealists (ie. interested in spiritual things) who tend to recognize the unity. So that's why to me outside=separative consciousness, and inside=integrative consciousness. So I'm wondering why you choose to use those words the other way round.
I may have missed one of your essays, but how and why have you assigned concave/convex to left/right brain, for example?
Keep up the great work, my friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
urbanspaceman
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 296
Location: London , UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I see, there it is. Left brain=concave, right brain=convex. I'm still not clear on why. Is it that there's an oscillation there, and VE polyhedra is expansion, and the octahedron the compression? But don't both sides oscillate back and forth, while one contracts, the other side expands? I'm still trying to visualize what you are saying.
Oh, by the way, what software did you use for the 3D geometric animations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| urbanspaceman wrote: |
| just0 wrote: | | What numbers correspond to symbols for concave and convex i.e. ( ) ?? |
I'm not sure. I wasn't sure which numbers you had assigned to concave and convex, the negative or the positive ones. If, for example, positive numbers represent convex, why? Or is it arbitrary? |
I think the symbols for left bracket right bracket can be taken
as either convex or concave, so yeah they are arbitrary. What I was
getting at was that these two 'curves' are the numbers 9 and 0 on
standard keyboards. Just a minor observation.
| urbanspaceman wrote: |
Also your use of the words inside/outside in relation to left/right brain and separation/integration. Not that these terms are right and wrong, as long as we agree on definitions, but your usage of inside/outside does throw me a bit. I've often thought of outward looking people as the materialists, the ones who can only analyze parts and who are totally blind to the underlying unity of things. It is the inward looking people who are the idealists (ie. interested in spiritual things) who tend to recognize the unity. So that's why to me outside=separative consciousness, and inside=integrative consciousness. So I'm wondering why you choose to use those words the other way round.
I may have missed one of your essays, but how and why have you assigned concave/convex to left/right brain, for example?
Keep up the great work, my friend. |
Thanks dude, You too !!
The way i see this inside outside thing, might get confusing.
When I use inside / outside, I'm picking up on a lot of Fuller's thinking on
the basic designations for directions, these are the prime aspects of
direction.
If you notice that there is no UP or DOWN, you start to see that there
are two unique functions at play, and that they are not really opposites.
In that case, up is OUT and down is IN.
'Out' is any direction so it's never specific, 'In' is specific.
I hope thats not too confusing, but once you start seeing that these two
aspects have unique qualities you start to see that this basic Inside-Out
function is everywhere.
Moving on from that, you can say that if Out is non-specific, then it is
unified, like the circle. And it's compliment is specific, which means it has
to be seperated, you can call that a point or a line.
In respect to concave and convex the Out is the non-specific and diffused
nature of a sphere. (Energy deflects in every direction.)
Then concave is the Inside which is specific and directed (focused - satelite dishes).
Anyway, theres always this flipping which occurs, like what you're
getting at with Introvert and extravert. But theres a tendancy to over
generalise when it comes to different people. Like you can't say that all
introverts are connected and all extraverts are seperated. Allthough these
functions are at play, when it comes to the specifics of psychology it's
difficult to generalise. It's in the special case examples of psychology that
you will start seeing this 'flipping'. In other words it's hard to generalise
within a specific frame of reference.
Also, you can get the hang of this quite easy with the two basic parameters
of geometry, faces and points.
Points are the individual 'seperate' peices of the geometry.
Faces are the togetherness of those points, they are the areas which
connect those points.
In fuller's terms, the points are events or 'happenings', while the faces
are the absence of events.
We can call these two functions, Tuned-In and Tuned-Out, one is observeable
while the other is not.
I could go on and on with different ways of describing different aspects
of this Inside-Out function. It's fascinating to see it at work, In fact I
recently came across an article which describes this very function in
terms of cellular structure.
Here, Tension and compression are describing these same Inside-Out
functions.
You can download the full PDF below.
| Quote: | The Architecture of Life
A universal set of building rules seems to guide
the design of organic structures, from simple
carbon compounds to complex cells and tissues
by Donald E. Ingber
Life is the ultimate example of complexity at work.
An organism, whether it is a bacterium or a baboon, develops
through an incredibly complex series of interactions involving
a vast number of different components. These components, or
subsystems, are themselves made up of smaller molecular
components, which independently ex- hibit their own dynamic
behavior, such as the ability to catalyze chemical reactions.
Yet when they are combined into some larger functioning units
such as a cell or tissue—utterly new and unpredictable properties
emerge, including the ability to move, to change shape and to grow.
Although researchers have recognized this intriguing fact
for some time, most discount it in their quest to explain life's
fundamentals. For the past several decades, biologists have
attempted to advance our understanding of how the human body
works by defining the properties of life it's critical materials
and molecules, such as DNA, the stuff of genes. Indeed, biologists
are now striving to identify every gene in the complete set, known
as the genome, that every human being carries. Because genes are
the blueprints for the key molecules of life, such as proteins, this Holy
Grail of molecular biology will lead in the near future to a catalogue of
essentially all the molecules from which a human is created.
Understanding what the parts of a complex machine are made of,
however, does little to explain how the whole system works, regardless
of whether the complex system is a combustion engine or a cell. In other
words, identifying and describing the molecular puzzle pieces will do little
if we do not understand the rules for their assembly.
That nature applies common assembly rules is implied by the
recurrence at scales from the molecular to the macroscopic
of certain patterns, such as spirals, pentagons and triangulated
forms. These patterns appear in structures ranging from highly
regular crystals to relatively irregular proteins and in organisms
as diverse as viruses, plankton and humans. After all, both organic
and inorganic matter are made of the same building blocks: atoms of
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus. The only
difference is how the atoms are arranged in three-dimensional space.
This phenomenon, in which components join together to form larger,
stable structures having new properties that could not have been
predicted from the characteristics of their individual parts, is
known as self-assembly. It is observed at many scales in nature.
In the human body, for example, large molecules self-assemble into
cellular components known as organelles, which self-assemble into
cells, which self-assemble into tissues, which self-assemble into
organs. The result is a body organized hierarchically as tiers of
systems within systems. Thus, if we are to understand fully the
way living creatures form and function, we need to uncover these
basic principles that guide biological organization.
Despite centuries of study, researchers still know relatively little
about the forces that guide atoms to self-assemble into molecules.
They know even less about how groups of molecules join together to
create living cells and tissues. Over the past two decades, however,
I have discovered and explored an intriguing and seemingly fundamental
aspect of self-as-sembly. An astoundingly wide variety of natural
systems, including carbon atoms, water molecules, proteins,
viruses, cells, tissues and even humans and other living creatures,
are constructed using a common form of architecture known as tensegrity.
The term refers to a system that stabilizes itself mechanically because
of the way in which tensional and compressive forces are distributed and
balanced within the structure.
http://www.childrenshospital.org/research/ingber/PDF/1998/SciAmer-Ingber.pdf |
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| urbanspaceman wrote: | Oh, I see, there it is. Left brain=concave, right brain=convex. I'm still not clear on why. Is it that there's an oscillation there, and VE polyhedra is expansion, and the octahedron the compression? But don't both sides oscillate back and forth, while one contracts, the other side expands? I'm still trying to visualize what you are saying.
Oh, by the way, what software did you use for the 3D geometric animations? |
Yeah, there is an oscillation. If you where to construct an array of VE's (or 'jitterbug's' when there is no central sphere), then you have to use both octahedrons and VE's to 'fill all space'.
And when the octahedron's are expanding, the neighbouring VE's are contracting. Having them seperated out as Octahedron and VE is just a way of describing two states of the same "thing". But yeah, octahedron is the concave state, while the VE is the convex state.
The software I used was Maya , not really suited to this kind of stuff, but it works for me.
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obeylittle
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mind blown! Completely fused. DAMN!!!!!
I was punching the calculator as I read along and when I performed the synergetic Pi exercises I thought (at that time) I detected a flaw in the way you handled the calculation (something abstract where it shouldn't have been?)... according to my logic at the time as I was following along, the S-Pi I arrived at was the number 3. I decided to continue on rather than diagnose whether my logic was incorrect or whatever... anyway, by the time I neared the end of the article I had become so immersed in my thoughts concerning what all this may make possible and I lost my mind!
I can't remember how I calculated S-Pi to be 3 or the logic progression that took me there, but reading the Quantum Bit section about the A's + B's = MITE in the appendix clued me in a bit as to where I left off when I lost it, so its possible I'll regain control of my feeble mind as I read through it again, calculator again in hand. I'd like to come back again with some questions and other stuff after I've reread your article again.
Anyway, hats off to ya Just0! Your findings have immense practical value in various technical fields (as applies to forces and energy "states" and a bunch of other stuff), as I'll explain later (or probably you know that already).
And don't worry too much about S-Pi not coming out perfect yet... I think it'll clean up nicely, in a short. You see, I've been working on a 5 and 9 structured kinda thing for about 1 1/2 years now. A project you may have just tipped toward the probable for me... Be back when I'm stabilized and have written some things down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| obeylittle wrote: | Anyway, hats off to ya Just0! Your findings have immense practical value in various technical fields (as applies to forces and energy "states" and a bunch of other stuff), as I'll explain later (or probably you know that already).
And don't worry too much about S-Pi not coming out perfect yet... I think it'll clean up nicely, in a short. You see, I've been working on a 5 and 9 structured kinda thing for about 1 1/2 years now. A project you may have just tipped toward the probable for me... Be back when I'm stabilized and have written some things down. |
WOW, sounds VERY interesing. Can't wait !!
I'd love to hear what you had in mind with how it applies to forces,
I've got a few ideas, but I'm too detatched from physics to grasp what
they're talking about most of the time. lol
As far as S-Pi is concerned, i'm not 100% on it myslef .... In fact it's
clearing up those unsure parts that interests me, because theres so
more here to be explored.
Anyway, Glad to have you around for this
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noplacebo
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in quantum physics we determine the stucture of energy/ matter as consisting of quantisized packets of energy,there is no gradual declination but rather a jump from one state to another. now, have how we come to determine these theories?-through number -and numbers jump from 1-2-3-4 and so on, in quantisized packets- and as we descend from atoms to quarks ever deeper down the rabbit hole, it is just 1-2-3 or 1.1-1.12-1.13-1.14 etc, in ever graduating series of sub-particles that we have de-scribed, or brought into being by our structure of analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
henry
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:05 am Post subject: Quantum Fractals |
|
|
Those of you interested in this topic might find the following paper interesting.
http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/downloads.htm
and look at the paper: "A. Jadczyk, Quantum Fractals on n-spheres" (at the top), download the PDF file and have a look at the pages starting from p. 26 and then illustrations at the end. This is all playing with numbers and Platonic solids, including ones in four dimensions - which Ark says is even more interesting than those studied by Fuller in 3D.
Ark has not yet looked at Fuller's work, but says it is on his ever-growing list of things to do.
Henry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: Toroidal Hypersphere |
|
|
Hi peeps,
noplacebo, I like that explanation, when it gets down to it, quantum physics is number physics. I'm no expert
but isn't it the quantum of action i.e. the photon, that determines the fundamental unit. And this photon is
a 'virtual' particle i.e. everywhere at once (timeless) and with zero mass and zero charge, very mystical if
you ask me.
Henry, thanks for the interesting papers, quantum fractals yes, but there's something about N-dimensional geometry
that never rang true for me.
I think Fuller was onto something when he described some of the problems which physics encountered back when
their theoretical models of how nature operated 'broke down'. This was probably when electricity was discovered to
be behaving in a way which the classical models could not explain. This is where physics adopted the use of 'pure'
mathematics which could not be intuitively understood, this is where we lost modeleability of what was going on
in nature. The reason why this change occurred relates to the question of dimensionality in '3'space, to keep a
long story short, it's another example of science refusing to go back on it's word. Of course, we now have
N-dimensional spaces etc., which IMO confuses the situation and doesn't even come close to solving any of the
real problems of dimensionality and the modeleability of nature.
It seems to me that the questions which mathematicians/geometers have been asking is where the real problem
may be. Our culturally inherited systems of logic is -for the most part- based on some fundamentals of mathematics.
Probably the primary question to our understanding of mathematics is 'How many', from there the question
is extended to include geometry (geometry - to measure the earth/land), here the question is 'How much'.
Ratioing one thing to another is how we measure, but this tells you nothing about the personal value or
quality of what your experience tells you.
Restricting ourselves to systems of logic which only account for the quantizeable i.e. physically countable
and measurable aspects of our experience, is somewhat limiting when it comes to understanding more than
the separate 'parts' of experience.
Although there are separate parts which can be 'counted', there is also this 'space between' which is non-
quantizeable, continuous or infinite (Fundamental forces and the electro-magnetic spectrum for example). In such
cases, we take the same tools which we used for counting pebbles and apply them to these continuous aspects,
this is a problem because synergy is operative and can be very subtle. Like color for example, we all know
that different hues can be mixed together to give us different colors and that by taking blue, red and yellow
we can mix them together to get white, but this isn't as trivial as it sounds because that in itself is a synergy.
We usually don't notice it because we already know so much about white light and that by dividing white light you
can get all other colors, the point is, we tend to overlook synergetic behaviors.
I think this is where we run into a lot of problems in developing a coherent cosmology, our math is limited
in scope and by it's very nature it overlooks the fact that synergy is always operative.
Think about it, we say 2+2=4 - which is 'correct' for our culture and for the logical framework which we've
agreed upon. But if we we're to realize that this has nothing to do with the 'real world' and that in nature,
synergy is the name of the game, we might come to the conclusion that 2+2=5.. and why not ? Nature doesn't
work like a lego set, when nature 'builds' there are synergies, where the combination of one thing and another thing
can create something unexpected. This clearly violates logic in that you can never tell what will follow from logical
evaluation of what has proceeded. It's been said that anything that is logical has an antecedence i.e. a causal
relationship to what has gone before, but novelty must be the opposite of that which has an antecedence in that
it is something new and unexpected and cannot be predicted from what has gone before. That's how nature progresses
and 'grows', like perpetual motion, creating more and more novelty. This aspect is all over nature and is proven time
and time again, yet this is impossible in our view of number and mathematics, because logic is at it's foundation.
2+2=4 lol - sounds kinda like 1984
So back to the big questions of 'How many' and 'How much', I think that we've covered this well trodden path
for long enough, mathematicians are continually coming up with ever more sophisticated ways of counting up
larger and larger groups of things, maybe it's time we asked a new question and I think this is what we're
trying to do here. I'm not even sure what that question is, but it must relate to synergy and dynamic processes.
Luckily, this gets me off the hook when it comes to explaining this kind of stuff to mathematicians, because
the numbers being explored here aren't primarily referring to things because the questions of 'how many' and
'how much' doesn't tell you much about the quality of the larger whole. So I 'spose Geometry and Math are not
really the right words to use here.
Anyway, we're making some progress on the visual side of this, I've got a kind of compilation together where I'm
kicking around some ideas on synergetic shapes etc.
Near the end of this vid I got into relating the Torus to the Vector Equilibrium, this has been done before, but there's
a new twist to what's going on here i.e. the expansion and contraction of the torus reveals a lot more about the dynamics.
Anyway, I've put the clip up here for now, it's been acting up lately, hopefully it works; http://treeincarnation.com/articles/TEST.htm
The Torus has 2 Radii and you can make the Torus turn into a sphere (which would have TWO surfaces) by contracting one
radius to zero. This doubled up sphere is the same 'thing' as the doubled up Octahedron before it expands out into a VE.
And this is starting to gel really nicely with the Treeincarnation Hypersphere work and I'm seeing a lot of connections to
the synergetic number stuff too.
 
Looking at the profile of the torus resembles some of the illustrations in the shape and number article,
especially the singularity point at the center being the same as the point at the surface and again; 1, 0 and 8.
So the sphere with a doubled-up surface is a torus with one of it's radii at zero, increase that radius and the sphere
'grows' into a torus. Maybe this is an overlooked aspect to the topological problem of turing a sphere inside out. If the
sphere had two surfaces to begin with it could simply turn itself into a torus.
I got the tip-off from the work of Arthur M. Young who strongly emphasised the Torus as a Universal model in his
'theory of process', particularly for it's ability to illustrate a universe where everything is separate and interconnected simultaneously.
| Quote: | According to Young (1976a; 1980), the seven stages of process, which are found throughout ancient wisdom and esoteric literature, represent the seven topological distinctions possible with the torus, the most complex natural topological entity. The torus (Figure 2) is a self-referential "time-structure" with numerous unique properties (Young, 1976) such as:
1) composition from two rotating "perpendicular circularities";
2) the shape of a vortex, an entity which is consubstantial with its matrix--i.e., the only means by which self-sustained motion can exist in a given medium;
3) the same volume formula, 2pi²R³, as the Einstein-Eddington universe, the so-called hypersphere.
4) a universal distribution, occurring with photons and particles through the cellular centriole to the universal hypersphere;
5) the ability to reconcile the continuum of relativity and the discreteness of quantum theory;
6) the means to explain the ancient puzzle of "free will in a universe run by God" or how there can be self-determined entities in the continuum; and
7) seven topological distinctions--(i.e., a map drawn on the surface of a torus requires seven colors in order for all bordering countries to be distinguished by differences in color).
http://www.arthuryoung.com/barr.html |
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrewTerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The "8" is the two "0" with the "1" in the middle turned sideways.
'010' turned sideways looks like an 8. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DrewTerry wrote: | The "8" is the two "0" with the "1" in the middle turned sideways.
'010' turned sideways looks like an 8. |
Nice1 dude,
Sometimes it's so simple... it's complicated
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
