You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘geometry’ tag.

Picture – Albert Einstein standing on a rock stepping-stone, enjoying grabbing some sun at the sea shore (1945). Oh! … the sea shore. By the way, Mr. Einstein, what lovely sexy shoes you have!

[…] Einstein always appeared to have a clear view of the problems of physics and the determination to solve them. He had a strategy of his own and was able to visualize the main stages on the way to his goal. He regarded his major achievements as mere stepping-stones for the next advance. […] In his early days in Berlin, Einstein postulated that the correct interpretation of the special theory of relativity must also furnish a theory of gravitation and in 1916 he published his paper on the general theory of relativity. During this time he also contributed to the problems of the theory of radiation and statistical mechanics. […] After his retirement he continued to work towards the unification of the basic concepts of physics, taking the opposite approach, geometrisation, to the majority of physicists. […] (source Nobel prize org.)

Einstein on the Beach : Philip Glass / Robert Wilson, 1976.

[…] Einstein on the Beach (1976) is a pivotal work in the oeuvre of Philip Glass. It is the first, longest, and most famous of the composer’s operas, yet it is in almost every way unrepresentative of them. Einstein was, by design, a glorious “one-shot” – a work that invented its context, form and language, and then explored them so exhaustively that further development would have been redundant. But, by its own radical example, Einstein prepared the way – it gave permission – for much of what has happened in music theater since its premiere. Einstein broke all the rules of opera. It was in four interconnected acts and five hours long, with no intermissions (the audience was invited to wander in and out at liberty during performances). The acts were intersticed by what Glass and Wilson called “knee plays” – brief interludes that also provided time for scenery changes. The text consisted of numbers, solfege syllables and some cryptic poems by Christopher Knowles, a young, neurologically-impaired man with whom Wilson had worked as an instructor of disturbed children for the New York public schools. To this were added short texts by choreographer Lucinda Childs and Samuel M. Johnson, an actor who played the Judge in the “Trial” scenes and the bus driver in the finale. There were references to the trial of Patricia Hearst (which was underway during the creation of the opera); to the mid-’70s radio lineup on New York’s WABC; to the popular song “Mr. Bojangles”; to the Beatles and to teen idol David Cassidy. Einstein sometimes seemed a study in sensory overload, meaning everything and nothing…  […] (continues) [source ]

KNEE 5 | KNEE PLAY CHARACTER 1 : Numbers and Mr Bojangles /  KNEE PLAY CHARACTER 2 : Text from Knee Play 1 / BUS DRIVER : Lovers on a Park Bench

1,2,3,4… 1,2,3,4,5,6, …,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,… 1,2,3,4… 1,2,3,4,5,6, …,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,… 1,2,3,4… 1,2,3,4,5,6, … 2,3,4, … 1,2,3,4, … 1,6 …

Two lovers sat on a park bench with their bodies touching each other, holding hands in the moonlight. There was silence between them. So profound was their love for each other, they needed no words to express it. And so they sat in silence, on a park bench, with their bodies touching, holding hands in the moonlight. Finally she spoke. “Do you love me, John ?” she asked. “You know I love you. darling,” he replied. “I love you more than tongue can tell. You are the light of my life. my sun. moon and stars. You are my everything. Without you I have no reason for being.” Again there was silence as the two lovers sat on a park bench, their bodies touching, holding hands in the moonlight. Once more she spoke. “How much do you love me, John ?” she asked. He answered : “How’ much do I love you ? Count the stars in the sky. Measure the waters of the oceans with a teaspoon. Number the grains of sand on the sea shore. Impossible, you say? “, (text by Samuel Johnson).

Work in the invisible world at least as hard as you do in the visible one” ~ Mawlana Jalaladdin Rumi

What if the “invisible” were around you, and you could not see it, … unless you worked hard, really hard. And even if you worked really hard, the only thing you could saw was his shadow. The invisible’s shadow visible. No, by all means, my post is not about religion, believe me. Instead, valid science. For instance, if I gave you 6 matchsticks, and ask you to draw 4 triangles without crossing any two matchsticks, could you do it? The answer is positive. If you really think out of the box, indeed you can.

Carl Sagan (below) starts with a famous passage from Edwin Abbott Abbott‘s “Flatland – A Romance of many dimensions” (which I do vividly recommend – book cover above). A spheric creature from the 3th dimension visits Flatland, where only 2th dimension creatures live. And while a 2-D (a square) creature keeps worrying about his own sanity, the 3rd dimension creature feels highly frustrated with the outcome from their Spielberg-like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind“. In fact, the sphere his unhappy for being considered an psychological aberration.  At his own risk, and without worrying about his hypothetical unfriendly gesture from dimension to dimension, the sphere then, decides to start some ‘bizarre‘ experiences. The story goes…, but suddenly, Carl do moves on, … on what really matters:

[…] Getting into another dimension, provides an instantial benefit, a kind of X-ray vision […] Well, (says the square), … I was on another mystical dimension, called ‘Up‘ […] Now, if you look at the shadow, what you see is that not all lines appear equal, not all the angles are right angles […] The 3-D object has not been perfectly represented in his projection in 2 dimensions, but that is part of the cost of loosing a dimension in the projection […]  Now, I can not show you a tesseract , because I and you are trapped in 3 dimensions, but what I can show you is the shadow into 3 dimensions […] The 4-D hypercube, the real tesseract would have all right angles. That’s not what we see here, but that’s the penalty of projection […]

[…] So you see. While we cannot imagine the world of four dimensions, we can certainly think about it perfectly well […]


[...] People should learn how to play Lego with their minds. Concepts are building bricks [...] V. Ramos, 2002.

@ViRAms on Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 254,868 hits