Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 180
  1. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Attachment 1032

    Here's what I'm talking about. The proportions were distorted in the icosahedron you drew.

    And they are wrong in this picture too because the back is stretched to match the front whereas in a real projection it would appear shorter.

    You can see what a real icosahedron looks like in a real cube on this site, and it's nothing like the pictures above. You can rotate it on the site to get different views. Here's a snapshot that is supposed to be like the pic you drew (and the one above):

    Attachment 1033


    People who get into "sacred geometry" are not usually very good thinkers when it comes to geometry and mathematics.
    I cannot open http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curricul...onInCube.shtml

    But from your snanpshot I would say it matches the picture I drew. The icosahedron touches every side of the cube with one point, on 1/3 from the corner (i don't know how to say more exactly) , so fitting to a cube 6 x6 x6 (or maybe also to cube 3 x 3 x 3)

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    I cannot open http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curricul...onInCube.shtml

    But from your snanpshot I would say it matches the picture I drew. The icosahedron touches every side of the cube with one point, on 1/3 from the corner (i don't know how to say more exactly) , so fitting to a cube 6 x6 x6 (or maybe also to cube 3 x 3 x 3)
    The snapshot doesn't match at all. The angles and points of contact between the cube and the icosahedron are totally different.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #133
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The snapshot doesn't match at all. The angles and points of contact between the cube and the icosahedron are totally different.

    Here you can see how an icosahedron fits within a cube.



    I you turn the icosahedron a little you can make it fit in a cube 6 x 6 x 6, touching each face with one vertex instead of two (as pictured above.)

    The touching point being here:



    Maybe one could find the formula for it.
    Last edited by sylvius; 12-28-2013 at 03:25 AM.

  4. #134
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,786
    Wikipedia presents this graphic form as inherent to the icosahedron:

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



    This construction can be geometrically seen as the 12 vertices of the 6-orthoplex projected to 3 dimensions.
    That's very nice, especially sincce it is the birth-image I drew for my first child:



    I saw it by then as picture of the Alpha and the Omega and the name of God and the letter Alef (as 10 - 6 - 10).
    Last edited by sylvius; 12-28-2013 at 06:39 AM.

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    Here you can see how an icosahedron fits within a cube.



    I you turn the icosahedron a little you can make it fit in a cube 6 x 6 x 6, touching each face with one vertex instead of two (as pictured above.)

    The touching point being here:



    Maybe one could find the formula for it.
    That's exactly correct. It's the same as this pic I posted earlier which obviously doesn't match the pics you have been drawing:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	icosahedran-in-a-cube.PNG 
Views:	23 
Size:	30.3 KB 
ID:	1034
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That's exactly correct. It's the same as this pic I posted earlier which obviously doesn't match the pics you have been drawing:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	icosahedran-in-a-cube.PNG 
Views:	23 
Size:	30.3 KB 
ID:	1034

    Here you can see how the isocahedron fits within cube 6 x 6 x 6 = Metatron's cube:



    It must be proof enough!

    I did put it together from this, just that my granddaughter ruined it a bit (and I don't like to do it over again):

    http://www.korthalsaltes.com/model.p...en=icosahedron

    Last edited by sylvius; 12-29-2013 at 02:28 AM.

  7. #137
    rdelmonico101@gmail.com Guest

    Post Star of David

    If we use circles we can make a 2D star of David with 37/73.
    If we use spheres we can make a 3D version with 220/300.

  8. #138
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    Here you can see how the isocahedron fits within cube 6 x 6 x 6 = Metatron's cube:



    It must be proof enough!

    I did put it together from this, just that my granddaughter ruined it a bit (and I don't like to do it over again):

    http://www.korthalsaltes.com/model.p...en=icosahedron
    You didn't have to go through all the effort to make a model. We already knew that the icosahedron fits within the cube. Your model is the same as this pic I posted (except is shows the precise points of contact):

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	icosahedran-in-a-cube.PNG 
Views:	19 
Size:	30.3 KB 
ID:	1035

    The point is that this does not match the drawings you have done, where you overlap the icosahedron with a 2D projection of a cube.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #139
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You didn't have to go through all the effort to make a model. We already knew that the icosahedron fits within the cube. Your model is the same as this pic I posted (except is shows the precise points of contact):

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	icosahedran-in-a-cube.PNG 
Views:	19 
Size:	30.3 KB 
ID:	1035

    The point is that this does not match the drawings you have done, where you overlap the icosahedron with a 2D projection of a cube.
    On the pic you posted all 12 vertices touch the cube.

    In my figure 6 vertices touch the cube, it being like Mr. Gilchrists isocahedron that fits within Metratron's cube.

    I wanted to contend that Metratron's cube is the perfect cube 6 x 6 x 6, to which does fit star 73.

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    On the pic you posted all 12 vertices touch the cube.

    In my figure 6 vertices touch the cube, it being like Mr. Gilchrists isocahedron that fits within Metratron's cube.

    I wanted to contend that Metratron's cube is the perfect cube 6 x 6 x 6, to which does fit star 73.

    That is correct - all twelve vertices touch the sides. We can see this in the pic you posted earlier:




    None of the pictures you have posted showing the real icosahedron in a cube match the pics you have draw projecting the icosahedron onto the projection of the cube in the star. That's my point. They just don't match up. The 2D drawings are wrong.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •