I have been thinking, lately, about all the various systems of accounting of the various shapes re-discovered such as the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, icosahedron, dodecahedron, etc., including the sphere.

**Questions and Answers:**

How do they interlock? Which came first, the sphere or the Platonic solids? What is the unity of these various parts? Are the parts not really seperate from the whole?

A long, time ago I heard a good friend say to me, "Spherical trigonometry
should be taught first in school". It could have been Buckminster Fuller. Of course
I had never met Bucky but his work was a good friend and was at the core of my seeking.
I knew this instinctively from the beginning. He had fashioned real models of the
platonic solids and it was a fascinating study to see these take shape. Spherical trigonometry
seemed to be the accounting of the vertexes, edges, surfaces and angles of these
solids.

I kept collecting data over the years, long before Bucky and long after discovering
him. Most of it was very disjointed and scattered. Occasionally I would discover
a jewel of knowledge or insight.
Several authors shocked me when I saw their elegant discourse
of the toroidal shape. It seemed that all of universe was based upon a series of Platonic
shapes within a sphere, only much later discovering that this sphere had a center hole in it.

Many, many notes later, I kept running across systems that various Philosophers, Metaphysicians
and re-discoverer's postulated was the 'right one'. My conclusion about the right
one was interrupted very quickly when I realized that if there were two or more systems of accounting claiming to be the right one, one or more of those claimants
was somewhat off-base or incomplete. That ended that. No more was I going to believe any one
claimant. But, distrust was very counter-productive and I saw no-one who could demonstrate the complete picture, therefore the only one I could trust to do that for myself,
was myself. If I could trust myself with what I concluded, then it would be possible
to trust all others in their offerings . I began to study, like a mad-man going through hell, any and every claim I could find to arrive at a final answer. To make a
long story short, the following is offered as a short list of the general on-track-accounting
claims:

**The Accounting Systems:**

Several of these links (David Wilcock) and related subjects Courtesy of Dee Finney

The system of hyperphysics and the tetrahedral accounting. David Wilcock's'Consciousness Units'. The sphere as basic unit.

The system of David Wilcock and the World Grid. 'Consciousness Units'. The sphere as basic unit.

The system of modeling Platonic solids by Buckminster Fuller and Ancient Philosophy. The sphere relating to solid structure.

The system of accounting of the icosahedron and dodecahedron discussed by Becker / Hagens concerning David Wilcock's insights. The sphere and more complicated structure. Becker / Hagens Paper: Source Reference

Becker & Hagens' UVG 120 or Polyhedronic Crystal grid

Carl P. Munck's work, shows that a planetary system of latitude and longitude coordinates was always in consideration when ancient monuments were constructed. The sphere relating to the earth.

The spherical accounting of Marko Rodin. The sphere and the logarithmic spiral. This represent the 'pattern' of numbering of the various vertexes nested within one another. This is not the final numbering system, only the pattern, upon which, the numbers will be placed.

The recursive Unified Reality Theory, composed of a singular existance (a sphere) that has formed relationships with itself repeatedly, creating progressive levels of reality. Very extensive and through. The evolution of the sphere. In it we find the sphere as basic unit composing the matrix or grid (of space) upon which we find the spiral, torus, the Tzolkin criss-cross pattern and the DNA helix denoting the pattern of reality. This is not the final numbering system, only the pattern, upon which, the numbers will be placed.

The New Universal Consciousness by D. G. Leahy is the mathematics of Universe. Very extensive and through. The evolution of the sphere. The mathematical progression of universe from no.thing to some.thing. Within his discourse is the number 82944 and The Unification of the Fundamental Force Constants 1/137. I noted that the sq. rt. of 82944 is 288(double light). This is not the final numbering system, only the pattern, upon which, the numbers will be placed.

The Mayan system of the Tzolkin magic squares. The numbering of the pattern of spheres. The Mayan Tzolkins of magic squares of various sizes which represent the numbers. The sizes of the magic squares, I believe, should be matched to the solids being formed. This final accounting system should show how all Platonic solids are recursive.

Earth grid

The question today is, Where do we go from here? Do these systems have a common integrated
holistic, holy whole?

The next question to be asked is, How do all these various systems of accounting fit
within the final sphere shape of the total shape of what exists?

Do all the systems solids nest, one inside the other, from the most basic tetrahedral to the most complicated angular-vertex-surface-edge-accountings, finally arriving at the ultimate Fuller description, the "hi-tensegrity (high tension), high-frequency (more angles, 'angels') perfect sphere", that shape that defines the 'surface' of universe, sun, earth, moon, atom, electron and probably all the sub-atomic parts within atoms and electrons?

Or is the sphere formed first then the solids within them?

Or does the sphere form first then aggregates of spheres build solids?

You should decide for yourself through the reading of these accounting systems.

I will be thinking about this integration but with the very limited resources at hand,
I will leave this integration to you. You may have much more to contribute if you
grasp what these ideas are about and have the hardware to model them... (
Toni : )

© Copyright. Robert Grace. 2000