This is a very fascinating pattern, because the first time the scientists ever made photographs of the atom with a field emission microscope, it came out, you could really see the whole atom and it's operating and it was this vector equilibrium. It's that picture you see right there. I think we have that picture in a set somewhere. We'll find it for you and we'll put it on for you tomorrow. But it is really spectacularly there. The square is a little larger, it's sort of that kind of an aberration or distortion, but you can really spot the whole twenty-five great circles.

Next picture. And there we are looking at the icosahedron and its thirty-one great circles. And there is the icosahedron in the spherical with the venetian blind straps. Now I say there, you have seen now, the symmetries, actually, visually, the seven great symmetries of crystallography. You're a crystallographer you spoke about it yesterday the normal way... This becomes very exciting to see!

I found one that the crystallographers were not very familiar with were the twelve great circles, for some reason or other, of the vector equilibrium.

Next picture. Now we are looking at them both, and this is the end of these particular slides that we are going to use. There are other slides, Meddy, that we had put aside, reconfirming some of the things we have been over here today; but we might as well let that go for the moment.

I'm sure you are beginning to feel with me the interrelatedness of everything. I don't think there is anything that I have talked about in all these hours now, and we're getting pretty close now I think we're about to sixteen hours that everything is continually interrelatable. And think how really different that is from all of the specialization and the times when I was young when biology didn't seem to have anything really to do with chemistry and chemistry didn't have anything to do with physics. The UTTER interrelatedness appearing!

I'm going to bring you back to C.P. Snow and his book TWO WORLDS. And his book about the two worlds meant the two worlds of the humanities and the sciences, and he was absolutely convinced that there was a chasm building between them that absolutely would never be spanned. It was going to get worse and worse. He felt this was really a very great warning and that humanity must appreciate it.

He, then, in his book, if you read it, he attributes the chasm beginnings he goes back to about a century and a half to the middle of the 19th century the first half of the 19th century. And he points out then, for instance in America Emerson and Thoreau, he felt manifested antipathy to industrialization. Snow says that. The actual fact is that I think that is a very bad example and I'll give you good reason for it in a minute, but then he gave a number of authors in England, because he said, the literary man, the humanists just felt he didn't like the smell of the laboratory, he didn't like the feel of the factories that the labor was being cheated and so forth. It just felt wrong.

C.P. Snow asked me to come to visit him, just for an afternoon in his apartment flat in London, England when I was there. And I went over the energetic-synergetic geometry with him, and I went back to the point where I've said to you that scientists, starting with the beautiful Priestly-Lavoisier set of events of identifying steam, and combustion metallurgy out of it came the steam and the ships and the great wealth that was made by the people who put steam in their ships and they didn't have to wait for the wind in their sails. Brought about enormous patronage of the scientists and these great funds to the Royal Society out of which came thermodynamics.

And I said to C.P. Snow, as long as it was steam, the humanist could then go to the scientist and say, "I see just what's going on there you can see the steam, you can see how it goes you can turn it into pipe and things and you can see exactly what it does. You can FEEL it. It was no trouble for the humanists to describe that in a book. But when he got to electromagnetics and he couldn't see what was going on, then the humanist said "You've got to tell us Mr. Scientist, what IS going on? you must give us a model so we can describe, it. We always have to describe what goes on. " And that is the connection between science and humanists. And the scientists said "We can't, it's something invisible" and as I told you went into that the other day. And they felt a little guilty about it, but they suddenly felt great when they came to discovering in energy studies that black body radiation had a fourth power, exponential 4 rate of change, and they said, quite clearly then, nature you can't make anything but a three dimensional model because to them dimension was perpendicularity. And they said "You can't find another perpendicular system it's just parallel to a line that is already there, therefore you cannot have a fourth dimension....but, "the scientists said " Nature quite clearly is using a fourth-power inter-relationship, therefore, quite clearly Nature is not using models; therefore we are now excused and exempt from any requirements so we are justified in the position we did take, we're very lucky we took the position!"

As a consequence, Science, then, in the mid-19th century, what you and I, then, then would call "flying on instruments" they started flying on instruments and were not looking out the window anymore. And, they have been really flying for a century and a half on instruments. And this has really in the meantime when I was a kid, I was being told then that "no model and so forth" and I felt there was something probably wrong about that. Again, it is really interesting, the kind of strange suspicions I had that I'm not hearing things quite right, like the fractions and the decimals and so forth, and all the geometry arguments. What seemed to be self-evident to the geometer. I felt, then, that the we'd just get a more powerful microscope, and every time we'd get a microscope we could see something, because if Nature, then, really had a threshold, and she doesn't really have models, she'd get to where she didn't have any models. But when we got into that area, the people were saying there were only mathematical equations, then suddenly there were still some models. But the models were not easily explicable in the terms of x,y,z coordinates. So they say, the scientist used to say to me, that nature is just facetious, pay no attention to those pictures you see there.

That was a very strange attitude but it still was quite strongly in the time of say World War I, and between World War I and the great crash. Thank you. At any rate, it was, then, my feeling that the scientists were in some way making bad starts and bad assumptions when I saw that Nature is continually using models and something went on very tantalizing that seemed to be more or less orderly. And, so that made me persist as I have here.

At any rate, with C.P. Snow I showed him energetic-synergetic geometry, and I said to Snow "I don't think it was antipathy of the writers for the smell of laboratories and factories that made them into I think it was simply the scientists saying to the humanists "We can't give you a model. And C.P. Snow said "I really think you're right." So then I went over with him the energetic-synergetic geometry which he didn't know about. And I said "It is my hope that we really do have conceptuality returning and the conceptuality comes because I can make the fourth-dimensional models. We're not using up all this space around an omni-directional clock. I've got room for twenty hours and you only had room for eight, so with the twenty hours we can get in the fourth power no trouble at all.