Internal links list, in case non-story form is preferred:Concept of "[No Thing]"; Separation Axiom; Story of the Magus and his Notylon spheres; Ambiguous Flatness; The Network of Vertex Order Twelve; Physics; Ball Packing; "Freeviewing" 3D; Neologisms


Well, folks, nobody seems to be interested enough to take over this work, and I'm gonna die some day, so I guess it's time to try to improve interest, and clarify (as in: "make things much simpler to understand").

Thus, now we'll try it in story form:

In late 1987 or so, I was ready to cash it all in, was out of money, no job (what's so different, eh?), starving.
In that time there wasn't much to do but ask the One Question nobody can get an answer to while alive: "does something like 'God' exist, or not?"

Of course, one has to actually die in order to get this question answered, and I wasn't eating (no money, remember...), so I was pretty much ready to find out.
(BUT please don't mistake starvation from natural causes, for suicidality; I was not, nor have I ever been, suicidal.)

In the process of questioning, I was in a fugue of thought, trying to ascertain "why the Universe?" ; "Why me, IN the Universe?" ; "HOW can this Universe have come to be?"

One way to seek that answer was to "run the Big Bang backwards" and mentally see what might have started it.

Thus was born "Tetrahedraverse" (a label I've never liked, but I was of a mood to be descriptive rather than egotistical, so that's what it got named and it's WAY too late now to change it).

Running the Big Bang backwards means reversing Universe expansion, and eventually crushing everything everywhere —including "space" itself as well as the "time" that is space's siamese twin— down and down, smaller and smaller.

One keeps on crushing, finding "this" or "that" left and having to mash it also into the shrinking collection of everything, until eventually one gets to the point where all that's left IS a "point."
Crushing that point also out of existence leaves one WITH NOTHING.
("with" ?....Does it?) See:

The (non)-Concept of "nothing" ( [No Thing] )

Did you get that?
(*sigh*) (If you are one of the rare, rare, OH, so rare one-in-ten-thousand people with enough brain to HAVE gotten it, my apologies for suggesting you didn't, but since the odds are ten thousand to one against that, I choose to write for the majority.)

So I thought 'if it's not possible to "have" [No Thing], it must be absolutely true that the universe must start with something.'

Fine. What something?

Since there's no "before" yet, whatever this something is, it must be barely enough to satisfy the condition that there not "be nothing." What would that be?

Paradox of the One and the Many; The "Separation Axiom"

Textual illustration: "The Story of the Magus and his Notylon Spheres."

Well, now. If we have an infinite number of these little instances of dimensionless "thingness," and they're each and every one obeying an Original Property to be individuals, to be as far away from any of their brethren as they can get, what sort of collective "thing" would they create, and what would happen (if anything) to it, and WHY would that happen?

Ambiguous Flatness and a "Random Fluctuation in Nothing "

(Euler wakes and stomps around a bit)
Good grief, that's a big ball of little identical locations of dimensionless thingnesses, all hating one another.
So what? So I've got an immense ball of, for all practical purposes, little balls, so what do I do with a tight bag of marbles? I have to get an entire Universe out of this, so there has to be some way for something to move, at the very least....

Spherical Compression; The NETWORK of VERTEX ORDER TWELVE

Kepler's "Problem of the Thirteen Spheres" :: Tetrahedraverse's "Icosahedro(not)"

OK, so we have movability, we have a sloppy-loose bag of marbles.... Don't we need somehow to connect what we see in this object, with the real world?
Sure we do, and that's where you come in (Mr. Physicist; Mr. Cosmologist; Mr. Theoretician), 'cause I'm none of those things; I just don't have the information nor the brain to apply it, to make all these enticing correspondences match Physics.

Points, Gaps; Where is "Physics?"

"Time" in the Network; Motion of Pionts

What is a Proton?

The "Icosahedro(not)" and the spherical compression;
Why a true wire-frame type icosahedron in Tetrahedraverse is the most stable object.
Visual: stereo-pair .GIF of an Icosahedro(not).

But, I have been trying to figure out what is the connection between Tetrahedraverse and Physics: see the Python program I wrote.

Ball-Packing !

Various possibly or directly related works by various other people,
concerning packings of equal-radius balls, mostly limited to packing them in spheres.

Instructions for crossed-eyes viewing of a "stereo pair" (3D image pair)
If you're unfamiliar with crossed-eyes 3D images, read this before you look at the .GIFs and other images.

Special image format: the .TVG file. (For freeviewing-challenged persons, this will help.)

A short note on "neologisms" and mathematicians' hubris

(1) "Struck" and "Elastic Interval Geometry" --likely the world's only true 3D dynamic 'drawing' program. Must be used to be believed. JAVA based.

(2) --Tetrahedraverse-specific discussion (mailinglist) area at Gerald deJong's Fluidiom website. By permission only (email me).

Return to main page.