
Re: Common Core snippet a little distressing
Posted:
Jul 24, 2013 4:14 PM


Urner wrote; The octahedron we get, of four balls in a square, one above, one below, has a volume of 4, relatively speaking. Mr. Hansen you aparantly can see trough the smoking mirrors of synergetics, and your doubth is rightly placed. Mr. Urner You forgot to mention to Mr. Hansen that your tetrahedral spheres defining a cube face diagonal, and THIS cube is SAME as the cube where one is dissected in to 72 pieces or 48 pieces that these cubes are *same* just dissected differently. Now you have to explain Mr. Urner how a cube made of 6 half oblate octahedron aka. coupler made of 24 Mite, is same in size as the cube made of 72 modules, and if these CUBES are **same**, than a oblate octahedron aka. coupler if SAME in vol. as a reg. tet. If this is **TRUE** than a oblate octahedron can **NOT** be 4 times that of a reg. octhedron in vol.. This is according to spheres count CCP, mathematical account, tetrahedral account, yet synergetics assist even if the PHYSICAL models are totally wrong, that a oblate octahedron is 4 times that of e reg. octahedron in vol. Kirby be honest to these folks and tell them that I build the whole IVM from cubes, convert any tetra ALWAYS to cubes because according to x,y,z, the 60 deg. IVM is derived from cubes ALWAYS at the lowest common denominator for any structure. To know the cubes we KNOW the terahedra, to know the terahedra we know cubes, without ANY cumbersom coversion or of market deep vision of Fuller or Martians. Synergetics ONLY serves as a REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM,

