At our first meeting I reviewed what I could remember of my conscious input of what it is I am conscious of when I say I am thinking. Remember we came out then with the development of a conceptual set, and the process of the thinking itself generated a geometry by virtue of the fact that my conscious input was one of dismissing for the moment holding out irrelevancies in respect, irrelevant to the set of experiences which I had had, that intrigued me, and I wanted to understand what the relationship was. I, therefore, would have to hold to the thinking about that, and there was a tendency of intrusion of thoughts coming to me as a consequence of my probably having asked myself questions on something, and the brain had been searching and coming back with the answer. The point was that my conscious thought was holding off momentarily irrelevancies to the situation the constellation that I was concerned with. Having discovered that my conscious part was this holding off of irrelevancies, I found that the irrelevancies fell into two main categories all the irrelevancies all the experiences which were too large, too infrequent in any way, to alter or tune in with the magnitude of relationships I was considering; and all the experiences in my life which were too high frequency, too small in any way to be measurable at the magnitude that I am considering. So it was really a tunable set.

Because the experiences were inherently omnidirectional observation, because our earth is revolving, and we are revolving and we're going around the sun continual readdressing of our view in many, many directions. Then, this meant, then, the dismissal of the irrelevancies to a macro and a micro group was an omni-geometrical phenomena, sending them outwardly and inwardly, and there was then a lucid set of stars that were quite clearly relevant to one another. That lucid set, then, defined an insideness and an outsideness. They were between the outsideness of the macrocosm and the insideness of the microcosm. We then found that the minimum number of stars that could define an insideness and an outsideness would be a tetrahedron. That is, if the two points had "between-ness," but no "insideness" or "outsideness" three points had between-ness but no "inside-ness" or outside-ness," not until we have the four points. So as we came to a system, and we are looking for the fundamental number of interrelationships of somethings that provoked us we didn't know what other items might be in it if we only saw three of them, there could be very readily be a fourth one. So as we began to really dismiss properly we find out which side that fourth one might be, to give the "insideness" and "outsideness." We found that there were four points, but also the four points had six "inter-relatednesses." So we have a prime number "3" and a prime number "2" geometry being generated here by the process of thought.

Then I developed a great deal more with you on the idea of the tetrahedron then being the minimum system, because I defined a "system" as "an aggregate of events that divide the Universe into all Universe outside the system, all Universe inside the system, and a little bit of the Universe which is the system" which I said is the defining subdivision. The tetrahedron is the minimum system of Universe, and it turned out to be, then, omni-triangulated and we found that structures are always triangulated. Structure meant triangle and triangle meant structure, there were no other stable polygons. Therefore, tetrahedron turned out to be the minimum structural system of Universe.

We did a whole lot more exploring, reviewing about tetrahedra the cheese tetra, the cheese platonic solids, and the slicing parallel to the faces of them and discovering that all of them were made asymmetrical by such slicing, with the exception of the tetrahedron which simply became a smaller, but absolutely regular, symmetrical tetrahedron, if it was sliced parallel to any of its four faces. So we found that the only geometry that could accommodate, whose symmetry could persist as a symmetrical system in Universe and yet accommodate alterations aberrational alterations, uneven alterations. The other geometries could not coordinate this phenomena.

We find that everything was in reference to the four planes, that were subtaining the four vertexes of the tetrahedron, so that we were dealing in a basic four dimensional system. I've made many references since that time coming back to tetrahedron and structures, and as we get into then just recognizing late, late yesterday, that in the water people and the mathematics of the water people coming from the Indian Ocean, into Babylon, to Crete, and then to the Ionian Greece, the possibility that the king's symbol of the hexagon the six equilateral triangles and the household or the distaff side using the square somehow indicated that they got into the public domain, the general domain for the first time in history, the mathematics in terms of reference to x,y,z coordinates of a square, but not in relation to the w,x,y,z of the four axes of symmetry of the four triangles of the tetrahedron. So we find dimensionality suddenly then being identified with previously by society only with perpendiculars to the system. Assuming that you'd have to have rectiliniarity. But we find then that you can have four sets of perpendiculars of the tetrahedron to symmetry, and this is the only fundamental symmetry that is not altered. So that we find then this four-dimensional quality of the tetrahedron makes it possible to MODEL four-dimensional, five dimensional models. Whereas you cannot model with cubes anything more than three dimensions. Fourth dimension is not accommodated. So that we found that the tetrahedron's volume was one and the cube was three when the volume was one so that if you use cubes you are using up three times as much space to identify the number agglomeration, and the tetrahedron seemed to be, then, not only nature's basic simplest structural system an absolute limit case; but it also then seemed to be the basic unit of quantation. And we found, then, we were able to identify that then with the quantum mechanics with one unit of quantum.

So, I'm now going to develop some more with you today of the energetic-synergetic geometry. Now our book will be coming out, I was told today, approximately, will be published, I think, the 3rd of April. The editors of Macmillan are here with us tonight, out in the control room, and it would be a good idea for them to experience with us a little of the energetic-synergetic geometry.

I'm going to review quite quickly the hierarchy of values of the synergetic solids, in contradistinction to the lack of being able to have a hierarchy of values when you use the cube as unity and use the edge of the cube as your unit of linear measure. Then you find that the tetrahedron's equal-length edge, or the octahedron or the icosahedron all the other platonic solids their volumes are irrational numbers in respect to the cube. Whereas with the tetrahedron as unity and the edge vector of the tetrahedron being the diagonal of the cube rather than the edge of it because it is necessary, the cube does not as we saw have any structural stability without the triangulation, and only when you put in the diagonal, into the cube, do you have stabilization as a structure. So that, we see, then, it is the diagonal of the cube that makes it a structure. So if I consider only hierarchy of structural solids where the integrity of the form of the solid is actually guaranteed by being properly triangulated, then you find that the volume of the cube is three, the volume of the octahedron I showed you was four, the volume of what we call the rhombic dodecahedron is exactly six, and the go onto what we call the vector equilibrium. I gave you the pumping one that fills all space, which was the form of twelve spheres close packed around one sphere. It is the first nuclear array . There is no inherent sphere at the center of a cube. And you cannot get a stable cube made out of spheres until you get to a very high frequency number of those spheres. But we have the first fundamental nuclear system is then a growth of layers of spheres around a nuclear sphere. That gives you then the twelve around one, and the twelve around one gives us then the twelve vertices of the vector equilibrium this is just to remind us of the fact that the cube doesn't have any stability by itself the rubber joints give you a little bit, but that's where you put, triangular there is a little triangulation, like triangular gussets in the corners provided by the webs of the rubber. So it's triangulation that makes it stand a little. Here is our vector equilibrium, and here are then the three vertexes in the northern hemisphere, three down there, and we have then the six around the equator there are our twelve. Now, the volume of the vector equilibrium is 20 when the tetrahedron is one, and consists then of, you can see the eight tetrahedron there is a tetrahedron that goes from this triangular face into its center. There are eight such triangular faces so we get eight tetrahedra in here, and it comes from, each of these square faces if the cross section of an octahedron an half octahedron whose vertex is the center. And the octahedron has a volume of four, so half a octahedron has the volume of two, and I have six of those square faces so six times two is twelve, plus the eight tetrahedra with the volume of one each, makes a total of 20 the vector equilibrium is twenty. So that this, really, then is the maximum domain of a nucleus.

One of the things I started really to search for in the early days of the energetic geometry was the following: I said, "it could be that we might find some patterns in Universe in relation to something where there was really specifically a nucleus." I found there was no inherent nucleus in the cube if you just try if you take one sphere and put four eight spheres around it's corners, they just fall off, there is absolutely no structural stability whatsoever. So I want to have a nuclear array, and this is the minimum nuclear array. And that then began to really intrigue me, and I said "It could be that around a nucleus there is subtle pattern evolvements, as I have progressive layers, for instance, as I put on more spheres; where there may be a unique set of pattern experiences. But you may come to a point, where it suddenly repeats the earlier one there may be a limit set of absolutely unique nuclear pattern interrelationships." I found that that is exactly what happens.

I'm going to need to use my board tonight, and we'll have a red nucleus here and, now, I'm going to draw myself a hexagon and make this a little easier to do. And we have another, then, sphere here. (he's drawing on the board) Anyway, I have a hexagon suddenly showing up in here, and this is the in a plane, six around one. Then I find, that there's you'll see that between these three balls here there is a nest. Therefore, I can nest a ball on top of that. When I do that, then, I overlap this one too much so I can't get one on here. I can have one however, in this nesting this is a pretty bad drawing, I'm sorry. But there is a nest in here. So I can have one here, and one here and one here. Three balls can nest on top of here and touch each other. You may remember when I had three balls on the two could touch each other, three could touch each other. No question about it, that gives you a triangle. Then there is a nest on top of that and you can have a fourth ball and that makes a tetrahedron. Now, I'm really reversing that here now. There's one at the center here now and then three are on top of it, and sitting in those nests. I can get three on the other side and they give me then the twelve spheres around one.

But I want you to think about for the moment, just in a plane, and quite clearly this is a rather stable affair, it doesn't seem to be trying to do anything to us. I'm going to have another layer of balls though. Now, you say, I don't think anything is happening. Just put another row around, so... But, you find that I put six around here the first time, and the second row if you count them up, you'll find that there are twelve. And so you added, the first time I had six sets of one, now I've then six sets of two so I have really then a basic "sixness" around here because it is a hexagon. But, I find that there were six in the first row, and there were twelve in the next row, that makes eighteen around one. For six sets then, it must be six sets of three, because six times three is eighteen. So I want to collect these in threes. You'll find that those are turbining around you see the turbine action? The minute I put an additional layer then, the first layer didn't try to do anything, but put one more layer on and it's trying to go around.

I could have taken, instead of these three, I could have taken these three. If you do that then it wants to go the other way, but the minute there is a third layer, they have to go somewhere it sets up a dynamic patterning.

There is quite a little difference in the situation if I have a light these are transparent spheres, I have a light at the center here, and it's relationship to the nucleus it gets a very beautiful direct lighting just tangent. But this next ball here does not have the same amount of light coming through it, so that is a unique pattern I want to introduce. Different things are going on here as the second layer is coming in. If I put on a third layer, we've got the second now, I'll get into a third. You'll find the same thing happens. From here on, there is always turbining. Only a first layer does not turbine, or want to go anywhere. It is apparent really in neutral.