"Clifford J. Nelson" wrote:

In article <3F9E9E02.73CF4DCF@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:

"Clifford J. Nelson" wrote:

Uncle Al has smeared it all, but more of it rubbed off on him than his
target.

It will take some time to apply Synergetics coordinates to physics or to
even look at the following web site.

http://users.adelphia.net/~cnelson9/

Worried, are you? You should be. Uncle Al knows more than you do
because he is capable of scholarship; original thought, too.

No tensor theory contains coordinates. Coordinates are an artificial
construct. No coordinate system has any advantage over any other
coordinate system other than as a local convenience as they all map
onto each other. You are an ***** for having a Cartesian fetish: There
are EIGHT simply-connected geometric 3-manifolds with compact
quotients,

WP Thurston, "Three-dimensional geometry and topology," Vol. 1.
Princeton Mathematical Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997; "Three-dimensional
manifolds, Kleinian groups and hyperbolic geometry," Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. 6 357-381 (1982).

1) Here, why don't you take your "Synergetics" and tell us what
this represents:

(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + 2y -1)[(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - 2y -1)^2 - 8z^2] +
16xz(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - 2y -1) = 0

If you like parametric equations,

x = cos(u){[cos(v) + sqrt(2)]cos(u/2) + sin(v)cos(v)sin(u/2)}
y = sun(u){[cos(v) + sqrt(2)]cos(u/2) + sin(v)cos(v)sin(u/2)}
z = -sin(u/2)[cos(v) + sqrt(2)] + sin(v)cos(v)cos(u/2)

Uncle Al was kind to you - that finite body has as little of anything
as a body can have. That is very Buckminster Fullerish. Put up or
shut up.

2) How does "Synergetics" handle confocal ellipsoidal coordinates?
That coordinate system has two origins. It is the easy way to handle
diatomic hydrogen species.

So, you don't see a gap if Synergetics coordinates were removed from:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/CoordinateGeometry.html ?

And you have read a book I haven't (WP Thurston, 1997) and I have read
books you haven't (RB Fuller, 1975,1979), that answer your intended
question about why a coordinate system based on the rational coordinate
model of closest packed spheres, without the "ghostly, a priori Greek
geometry" with its finite bodies that have "continuous surfaces", was
invented.

I note that you have no reply to my studied rebuttal. If you cannot
support your position then you have no position. If your
"Synergetics" cannot handle a closed nonorientable surface of Euler
characteristic 0, woe be unto you when you attempt to diddle the real
world. You are being blunted by an organic chemist. Do you have any
idea how demeaning that is?

Packed spheres in how many dimensions? Start with Soddy circles and
go to spheres, then upward. You are a Platonist worshipping beans and
damning sqrt(2). You are too parochial to matter.

When you know something about a subject - when you have read the
commentaries of multiple qualified competing practitioners and
understand their methods and contentions - then you may meaninfully
further comment. You remind me of "The Wicker Man" when the Christian
and the Pagan start screaming dogma at each other. It's ludicrous.

Buckminster Fuller pulled on his pants like any other man. Anything
he said that was especially clever has been seized upon by the great
greedy engine of capitalism to generate profits by crushing less able
competition. He bloviated a lot of obtuse crap, too. You are humming
the score but are entirely clueless about the libretto...

...Unless you demonstrate otherwise. Don't argue with me; I don't
care that much. Defend yourself with counterdemonstration or die.
Predict something testable intrinsic to "Synergetics" that is at odds
with mainstream thought. We're waiting.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm

Uncle Al sees what everybody else has seen and thinks what nobody else
has thought - complete with empirical falsifiable experiment performed
by disinterested others and consistent with all prior observations.