Chris Navin » Geometry

From The Wall Street Journal Via AL Daily: Buckminster Fuller’s World

chr1 — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:11:09 +0000

Terry Teachout takes notice of the traveling exhibit: Buckminster Fuller: Starting With The Universe (at the Whitney in late June). So was Fuller comparable to Frank Lloyd Wright?:

“…Fuller was a Wright-like figure, a high-octane utopian who believed in the life-enhancing potential of modern technology. The difference was that Fuller lacked Wright’s ruthless determination.”

Both have their followers and left some interesting work behind. The discussion also reminds me of the explosion of science fiction this past century, and some of its darker mystic, utopian…and even religious (cultlike-this is alleged of course) tendencies that can make for good reading.

This is one point Teachout wants to address when such ideas are pulled into the political realm:

“Was modernism totalitarian? That’s coming at it a bit high, but it’s true that more than a few top-tier modernists were also one-size-fits-all system-mongers who thought the world would be improved if it were rebuilt from top to bottom — so long as they got to draw up the plans.”

I first came across that argument here. Do such visions have potentially harmful consequences in the political arena?

Perhaps, but in the meantime Fuller’s geodisic dome (platonic solids, ever-existing?) is still pretty interesting.

Some Differences Between Newton And Goethe: Theories Of Light

chr1 — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:47:03 +0000

“My Design in this Book is not to explain the Properties of Light by Hypotheses, but to propose and prove them by Reason and Experiments…”

Sir Isaac Newton, Opticks.

Here’s a brief visual (scroll to the bottom of the page) of 2 of his experiments.

From A Wolfram biography of Newton:

“Newton invented a scientific method which was truly universal in its scope. Newton presented his methodology as a set of four rules for scientific reasoning. These rules were stated in the Principia and proposed that (1) we are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances, (2) the same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes, (3) qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal, and (4) propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them.”

An artist can transport you to a vast imaginative world of profound insight and profound truth. Anyone who’s experienced great art can attest to that. Yet, part of the rigor of science is in its painstaking correspondence to observable phenomenae, to measurement (and a capacity for nimble and accurate estimation), and to a set of laws often derived from mathematics which as far as we know, have not yet been proven wrong when applied to nature.

Many artists seem to take much freer license with their imaginations, and despite their own rigors which are rarely appreciated by the audience, seem to differ in many important ways from such a standard.

——————–Here’s a repost I put up about Goethe:

Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe is perhaps Germany’s greatest poet and writer, best known for Faust. Not so well known is Goethe’s theory of color (which claimed insights that could refute Newton). Like many artists, Goethe isolated the effect color has in terms of experience, making profound observations on refraction…for example…but for which he didn’t have a workable theoretical framework. To this, a certain type of philosopher might say: he ignored the fact that his thoughts and his senses combine to form experience.

Goethe from Steiner, from wikipedia:

“The colours therefore, to begin with, make their appearance purely and simply as phenomena at the border between light and dark…”

Colours arise at the borders, where light and dark flow together.“

Click here for a visual representation.

Goethe seems to have thought of light and dark in terms of a metaphysical dualism, from whose interaction color is born.

Newton held that white light passing through a prism is diffused into its various wavelengths. He also may have steered the discussion into wave-particle duality.

See Also: Wikipedia’s article, Physics Today article on his experiments, Goethe’s color triangle.

It seems like this debate (art/science) is a product of the times. I don’t think I’ve offered too much in the way of real insight.

George Smoot and Sean Carroll: Cosmic Inflation

chr1 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:23:48 +0000

If you’re interested in some ideas about the current state of cosmic inflation and Big Bang theory, check out recent Sean Carroll’s bloggingheads turn (~12 min). Recommended.

Also, George Smoot’s book, Wrinkles in Time is very readable and fun (like listening to a really interesting, smart friend) and gives a background to his COBE research and contributions to Big Bang theory. He had quite an adventure.

It’s a good way for novices to prevent from becoming cranks. Thanks to Mr. Carroll for sharing.

Dr. Lisi In The Economist: E8

chr1 — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:33:10 +0000

Here is a link to the article in the Economist, and, of course, this is the shape that could explain the cosmos.

From the article:

“It is elegant. It is expected to make testable predictions. Unlike some of the more complicated efforts to devise a theory of everything, this one should either succeed relatively rapidly or fail spectacularly. And that is more than can be said for three decades of work by other physicists.”

That’s all that can be said for three decades of work by other physicists?

A theory should either succeed relatively rapidly or fail spectacularly?