INTRODUCTION

This paper describes the mathematical properties of the five regular polyhedra,

better known as the “five Platonic solids”, and analyzes their role in some ancient and

modern cosmologies. I argue that such cosmologies provide evidence that these five

solids are, in some combination, bases for the formation of all material forms - that is, all

material forms have as their constituents the shapes of the five Platonic solids in some

Combination.

As we consider the history of mathematics we can appreciate that the drive to

understand the structure and operation of the material world indeed reaches back through

the ages. Ancient cultures have left behind evidences that they have contemplated the

structure, shape, and operation of matter from the smallest to largest forms. Such

evidences include inscriptions on tablets, scrolls, papyri, stone engravings and geometric

figures. Later philosophers and mathematicians have left behind profound treaties on the

5 regular polyhedra.

OVERVIEW OF THE FIVE REGULAR POLYHEDRA

Dodecahedron Icosahedron

1
 Octahedron Tetrahedron

Cube

5 Platonic Solids (Figure A)

(Saviour, 2004)

The Platonic solids represent the only polyhedra that can be formed using

identical regular polygons. A regular polyhedron has equal regular polygon faces and

identical vertices. The five Platonic solids are the only convex regular polyhedron.

Euclid of Alexandria (c. 325 B.C. E. – 256 B.C.E.) proved in Book III of his elements,

that there are only five regular convex polyhedra. This proof is based on the idea that

only five solid angles made of regular identical regular polygons are possible. All five

regular solid angles repeat to form the regular polyhedra. In his elements, Euclid

systematized how to construct the 5 solids. Later in the eighteenth century, Leonhard

Euler (1707-1783) discovered that in every convex polyhedra the number of faces minus

the number of edges plus the number of vertices equals two.

2
DUALS

Daud Sutton (2002) gives us some general properties of the Platonic Solids. The

Platonic Solids have a particular property in that each one has a dual. These "duals" are

created using the points at the centre of each face which then describe the vertices of the

other. Starting with a tetrahedron, we discover another tetrahedron. The faces of a cube

produce an octahedron, and an octahedron creates a cube. The icosahedron and

dodecahedron likewise produce each other. Two polyhedra whose faces and vertices

correspond perfectly are known as each other’s duals. The tehrahedron is self-dual.

Dual polyhedra have the same number of edges and the same symmetries.

The below table summarizes the dimensions of the 5 Platonic solids

Polytope vertices edges faces duals

1. Tetrahedron 4 6 4 self-dual

2. Octahedron 6 12 8 cube

3. Cube 8 12 6 Octahedron

4. Icosahedron 12 30 20 dodecahedron

5. Dodecahedron 20 30 12 Icosahedron

Table 1

(Sutton, 2002)

The Platonic Solids also have some interesting geometry that points to far more

subtle connections between them and their occurrence in the natural world.

3
 If one says that each of the solids is in proportion to each other when their vertices all

inscribe the same sphere then

• the distance between opposite vertices is, of course, always constant (the

tetrahedron has no opposite unless one considers the star-tetrahedron, its own

dual).

• the length of the edge of the cube is equal to the distance from one vertex of the

face of the dodecahedron to one of its opposites, and the relationship between

these edges is the transcendental number PHI.

• All five can be fitted together, one inside the next, like the compartments of some

magic box. And they are further linked by a strange inner harmony. They can be

inscribed in themselves or each other, in certain endless rhythmic alternations.

THE ARCHIMEDEAN SOLIDS

There is a subclass of solids that are formed by more than one type of regular

faces. This type of solid is known as a semi-regular polyhedron, or an Archimedean

solid, after Archimedes (c. 287 B.C.E. – 212 B.C.E.). There are only 13 Archimedean

solids. There are a many other types of solids that can be derived from the 5 Platonic

solids, but again there are only 5 regular convex solids.

4
 HISTORICAL COSMOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

The Platonic solids have long held a place as objects of special significance for

their physical properties, as well as the mental and sublime resonance they have on the

perceiver. The physical attributes of the solids, their literal form, are beautiful in their

symmetry and apparent simplicity. There is simple pleasure to be gained by

contemplating these objects, especially as real physical objects.

As objects triggering intellectual stimulation, the solids are still and have been

long used by teachers of math and science in the development of the understanding of

geometry, trigonometry and the crystalline nature of matter. More recently, it appears that

these fundamental structures have a role in the formation of all matter.

There is an equally aged symbolism associated with these basic building blocks of

nature. For example, the Pythagorean mystery school used these shapes when discussing

the creation of the universe and its elemental forms. It is from here that Plato derives his

discussion of the same in Timaeus.

The Platonists symbolized the elements, one with each of the solids. Earth,

Water, Air, Fire and Ether (in sequence of gross to subtle) are representative of the basic

building blocks of the universe, or states of matter.

5
 ANCIENT AWARENESS OF REGULAR POLYHEDRA

Neolithic Carved Stone Polyhedra (Figure B)

(Lawlor, 2003)

According to Dorothy N. Marshall (1976/77) evidence has been found

that awareness of regular polyhedra did not originate with the Greeks. Hundreds

of carved stone spheres, roughly three inches in diameter, believed to date to

around 2000 BC, have been found in Scotland. Some are carved with lines

corresponding to the edges of regular polyhedra. Roughly half have 6 knobs---

like the one at right above---but the others range from three to 160 knobs. The

more mathematically regular ones do not appear to have had a special

importance. For example, in addition to the 12-knob dodecahedral form shown

in the center and just to its right above, there are also ones with 14 knobs,

corresponding to a form with two opposite hexagons, each surrounded by six

pentagons. Nonetheless, the dodecahedron appears here long before the Greeks

wrote of it.

6
 In the image, note that the third and fourth balls, with icosahedral and

dodecahedral edges indicated, do not correspond to different underlying carvings.

THE PYTHAGOREAN "DICE OF THE GODS"

Julia E. Diggins (1965) gives a general background of the Pythagorean regard for

the 5 regular polyhedra. She informs us that the community of the Pythagoreans appears

to have been first organized at the close of the 6th century B.C. as a religious and

political movement in the large cities of Magna Graecia. Its founder was Pythagoras of

Samos [570-496 B.C.]. The community of Pythagoreans was not a philosophical sect but

a religious brotherhood which sought the moral and intellectual reawakening of all

mankind. Its members, both men and women, abided by certain rules in the

“Pythagorean fashion”. The purpose was salvation from the cycle of births [Orphism]

and the return to the lost divine state of blessedness. Mathematics and music were the

principal intellectual training fields. The new faith in believing that every scientific truth

was based on pure logical precepts promoted mathematics as an independent science.

The initiates of the Brotherhood were seeking a special key to the universe in the realm

of numbers and abstract forms: triangles, circles, squares, spheres, and the more

elaborate forms they made themselves. The school quickly registered remarkable

advances in geometrical proofs and the theory of numbers, for the art of calculation

became a pure arithmetic, that is, a theory of numbers. After long and painstaking

experiments, they discovered at least three of the five regular solids. These were

remarkable and beautiful polyhedra, or shapes with many faces. The full tale of these

7
solids can only be guessed at from bits of legend and history, for all the experiments

were top secrets, of course.

The Pythagoreans may have learned of the regular polyhedra through their

experiments shared with tiles. Ordinary floor tiles had yielded the easiest example of the

Pythagorean theorem. So the Secret Brotherhood may have made a painstaking study of

these close-fitting forms that covered many Greek floors. By making loose tiles of

various shapes and placing them in patterns on the ground, they could have reached a

striking conclusion. There were only three regular shapes of tiles that would fit together

perfectly to cover a flat area completely: triangles (three sides), squares (four sides),

hexagons (six sides).

Pythagorean Tiles (Figure C)

(Diggins 1965)

8
 The Pythagoreans and their successors gave the five regular polyhedra mystical

meanings. The esoteric reasoning, as repeated later, went something like this:

The cube, standing firmly on its base, corresponds to the stable earth. The octahedron,

which rotates freely when held by its two opposite corners, corresponds to the mobile

air.

Since the regular pyramid has the smallest volume for its surface, and the almost

spherical icosahedron the largest, and these are the qualities of dryness and wetness,

the pyramid stands for fire amid the icosahedron for water.

Since the last-found regular solid, the dodecahedron, has twelve faces, it represents the

whole universe, since the Zodiac has twelve signs.

Such notions were typical of that age. And more than two thousand years later, the

famous astronomer Kepler was still so awed by the unique properties of the five regular

solids that he tried to apply them as planetary orbits: he assigned the cube to Saturn, the

pyramid to Jupiter, the dodecahedron to Mars, the icosahedron to Venus, and the

octahedron to Mercury.

These regular solids were so revered by the Pythagoreans that they long referred

to them as "dice of the gods."

9
 PLATONIC SOLIDS AND PLATO'S THEORY OF EVERYTHING

“Platonic Solids and Plato's Theory of Everything” (n.d.) website gives us

pertinent historical information on Plato’s contribution to the understanding of the 5

regular polyhedra. This impact was apparently so great that subsequent to his exploration

of the regular solids, they have since been widely referred to as the “Platonic solids”.

While he is not known as a mathematician, Plato had a great appreciation for

mathematics. One of the things that most caught Plato's imagination was the existence

and uniqueness of what are now called the five "Platonic solids". It's uncertain who first

described all five of these shapes - it may have been the early Pythagoreans - but some

sources (including Euclid) indicate that Theaetetus (another friend of Plato's) wrote the

first complete account of the five regular solids. Presumably this formed the basis of the

constructions of the Platonic solids that constitute the concluding Book XIII of Euclid's

Elements.

In any case, Plato was mightily impressed by these five definite shapes that

constitute the only perfectly symmetrical arrangements of a set of (non-planar) points in

space, and late in life he expounded a complete "theory of everything" (in the treatise

called Timaeus) based explicitly on these five solids.

In Timaeus, Plato actually chose to constitute each of these solids from right

triangles, which played the role of the "sub-atomic particles" in his theory of everything.

10
In turn, these triangular particles consisted of the three legs (which we might liken to

quarks), but these legs were ordinarily never separated. The right triangles that he chose

as his basis particles were of two types. One is the "1,1,sqrt(2)" isoceles triangle formed

by cutting a square in half, and the other is the "1,2,sqrt(3)" triangle formed by

cutting an equilateral triangle in half. He used these to construct the faces of the first four

solids, but oddly enough he didn't just put two together, he used six "1,2,sqrt(3) triangles

to make a triangular face, and four "1,1,sqrt(2)" triangles to make a square

face, as shown below.

Platonic solids and Plato's theory of everything. (n.d.)

Of course, it's not possible to build a pentagon from these two basic kinds of right

triangles, and Plato doesn't actually elaborate on how the faces of the dodecahedron are to

be constructed, but from other sources we know that he thought each face should be

composed of 30 right triangles, probably as shown on the right-hand figure above, so that

the dodecahedron consisted of 360 triangles. The tetrahedron, octahedron, and

icosahedron consisted of 24, 48, and 120 triangles (of the type 1,2,sqrt(3)), respectively,

and the hexahedron consisted of 24 triangles (of the type 1,1,sqrt(2)).

11
 Now, if the basic triangles were the subatomic particles, Plato regarded the

solids as the "atoms" or corpuscles of the various forms of substance. In particular, he

made the following identifications:

number of triangles

type 1 type 2

------ ------

tetrahedron = plasma ("fire") 24 0

octahedron = gas ("air") 48 0

icosahedron = liquid ("water") 120 0

hexahedron = solid ("earth") 0 24

Early Greek philosophers believed that all the constituents of nature consist of

mixtures of a small number of "elements", and in particular the selection of the four

elements of earth, water, air, and fire, is attributed to the philosopher Empedocles of

Agrigentum (495-435 BC). Empedocles believed that although these elements (which he

called "the roots of all things") could be mixed together in various proportions, the

elements themselves were inviolable, and could never be changed. In contrast, one of the

intriguing aspects of Plato's theory was that he believed it was possible for the subatomic

particles to split up and re-combine into other kinds of atoms. For example, he believed

that a corpuscle of liquid, consisting of 120 "type 1" triangles, could be broken up into

five corpuscles of plasma, or into two corpuscles of gas and and one of plasma.

12
Also, he believed that the "smaller" corpuscles could merge into larger corpuscles, so that

(for example) two atoms of plasma could merge and form a single atom of gas.

However, since the basic triangles making up "earth" (cubes) are dissimilar to those of

the other forms of substance, he held that the triangles comprising cubes cannot be

combined into any of the other shapes. If a particle of earth happened to be broken up

into its constituent triangles, they will drift about until they meet again somewhere, refit

themselves together and become earth again.

KEPLER AND THE PLATONIC SOLIDS

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), best known for his three laws of planetary motion,

was one of the most outstanding mathematicians of his day. In addition to his

astronomical accomplishments, he systematized and extended all that was known about

polyhedra in his time. While previous artist/geometers discovered particular polyhedra,

he took a more mathematical approach: he defined classes of polyhedra, discovered the

members of the class, and proved that his set was complete. For example, Kepler

discovered the infinite class of antiprisms.

Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion while trying to achieve the

Pythagorean purpose of finding the harmony of the celestial spheres. In his cosmologic

vision, it was not a coincidence that the number of perfect polyhedra was one less than

the number of known planets. Having embraced the Copernican system, he set out to

prove that the distances from the planets to the sun were given by spheres inside perfect

13
polyhedra, all of which were nested inside each other. The smallest orbit, that of

Mercury, was the innermost sphere. He thereby identified the five Platonic solids with the

five intervals between the six known planets — Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter,

Saturn; and the five classical elements.

To emphasize his theory, Kepler envisaged an impressive model of the universe

which shows a cube, inside a sphere, with a tetrahedron inscribed in it; another sphere

inside it with a dodecahedron inscribed; a sphere with an icosahedron inscribed inside;

and finally a sphere with an octahedron inscribed. Each of these celestial spheres had a

planet embedded within them, and thus defined the planet's orbit.

(Figure D1)

Kepler's Platonic solid model of the Solar system from Mysterium Cosmographicum

(1596)

14
(Figure D2)

Closeup of the model

In his 1619 book, Harmonice Mundi or Harmony of the Worlds, as well as the

aforementioned Mysterium Cosmographicum, he also made an association between

the Platonic solids with the classical conception of the elements: the tetrahedron was

the form of fire, the octahedron was that of air, the cube was earth, the icosahedron

was water, and the dodecahedron was the cosmos as a whole or ether. To his

disappointment, Kepler's attempts to fix the orbits of the planets within a set of

polyhedrons never quite worked out, but it is a testimony to his integrity as a scientist

that when the evidence mounted against the cherished theory he worked so hard to

prove, he modified it.

15
 MODERN PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES

ETHER VIBRATIONS

The “Souls of Distortion” website by Daniel Winter (n.d.) contains ideas on the

role that “Platonic solids” play in the formation of matter. It presents a “standing wave”

theory for the formation of matter as an alternative to the mainstream “particle view” of

matter. This new theory is consonant with the thesis idea of this paper and will serve as

an introduction to a more detailed discussion on the structure of matter being the result of

wave interference in the form of “Platonic solids”. Daniel Winter goes on to discuss that

for hundreds of years brilliant physicists and philosophers have tried to represent our

world in mathematical models of particle physics that state that our physical world is

made of matter of which the smallest part is called the ‘atom’. Atom is an ancient Greek

word meaning undividable; it is supposedly the smallest part of matter that cannot be

divided anymore. Quantum mechanics, however, noticed that particles in some cases

behaved like waves and later introduced the wave-particle duality.

Some quantum scientist already suggested in the past that the quantum waves

could be real waves after all, existing in the physical domain. They did not believe the

particle wave duality was real. As long ago as 1937 Erwin Schrödinger suggested that

material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space

itself.

16
 Eventually even Einstein rejected the idea of discrete particles and believed that

particles were in fact part of a continuous field.

A growing number of post quantum physicists are discovering what Einstein and

Schrödinger already assumed; physics may have been on the wrong track all along,

misled by the idea that the material world exists of separate hard particles! They are

suggesting now that we may live in a wave-based universe. Matter is simply the focal

point of a vibration in an energy sea called the ether.

THE ETHER

In the website it is argued that there exists ether that is the medium of

electromagnetic waves whose interference patterns in the form of Platonic solids are at

base of all matter. The ether is assumed to be a non-material fluid-like medium, a subtle

energy substance that permeates the entire universe. It further argues this theory can

explain all physical laws both in Newtonian and quantum physics. It further postulates

that there is no dualism, no distinction between a material and immaterial thing; it’s all

energy since energy is all there is. Matter is not a fundamental property of the universe;

it is the form not the substance that shapes matter. Einstein’s famous formula E=m * c²,

implies not that energy and matter can be interchanged; but rather simply that matter =

energy.

17
 Ether physics is summarized as follows:

Our universe is multi dimensional and it is made of one substance and one

substance only. This substance is called ether and it is a vibrating fluid-like energy that

permeates the physical vacuum. Matter as we know it is created moment by moment as a

standing wave, a vortex in the physical vacuum. It is the condensed center of these

vortexes that creates the illusion of a separate particle. All matter in the universe is

interconnected since the particle fields extend to the far corners of the universe.

CYMATICS

Winter (n.d.) discusses the relation between vibration and geometry as described

by the work of Swiss medical doctor and natural scientist Hans Jenny (1904-1972) in a

science called “Cymatics”.

Dr. Hans Jenny’s ‘Cymatics’ research, vibration of a fluid

with colloid showing a star-tetrahedron (Winter, n.d.)

(Figure E)

18
 Dr. Hans Jenny tested these standing wave vibrations in spherical volumes of

fluid and discovered that all of the Platonic solids showed up as geometrical patterns. The

above picture star-tetrahedron was produced in one such test.

The white curved and straight lines in the photograph are the places where the

vibration is cancelled, these are the nodal points, the still places to which the colloid

particles dissolved in the fluid take refuge when the fluid is vibrated. The geometrical

patterns are the result of wave interference. When the outgoing waves from the center of

the sphere meet the reflected waves from the surface of the sphere, standing waves are

formed.

The experiments of Cymatics are now interpreted by Daniel Winter and David

Wilcock in Winter (n.d.) to show how the Platonic solid interference patterns also occur

within the ether and that it is these interference patterns that really shape the atom.

VORTEXES AND PHI PHYSICS

According to Winter (n.d.) the ether creates vortexes, little tornados of whirling

and spiraling energy in the ocean of ether, our universe. The vortexes in the ether are like

the little eddies in a river. When two of these ether vortexes join their funnels they form a

torus:

19
 Single ether vortex (Winter, n.d.)

(Figure F)

Double vortex = Torus (Winter, n.d.)

(Figure G)

The individual ether torus doughnuts can be nested inside each other. Nesting

torus doughnuts requires that the vortex cones of the torus are aligned with the faces of

the Platonic solids.

The flat bottom of a vortex cone should touch the face of a Platonic solid.

As an example we show the cube that contains 3 vortex pairs or 3 torus doughnuts

20
aligned perpendicular to each other in a cube and 5 nested torus doughnuts in a

dodecahedron.

Cube (3 doughnuts), Dodecahedron (5 doughnuts)

(Winter, n.d.)

(Figure H)

It is the nesting of the Platonic solids that creates the electron shells of the atom.

Similarly however at a much smaller scale the nucleus of the atom is formed.

The electrons in the electron shells correspond with the vortexes that are nested in

Platonic symmetries. According to Winter (n.d.), physics has mistaken these

vortex waveforms for electron particles. Within the atom, the electrons orbit the nucleus

at a fixed distance from the nucleus. The sphere that describes the orbital plane of the

electron is called the electron shell. There are different types of shells in the make up of

the atom that were given the names s,p,d and f shells and they contain respectively 2, 6,

10 and 14 electrons maximum.

21
 Each vortex pair in the doughnut corresponds with 2 electrons and when the

doughnuts are organized inside the Platonic solids we get the equivalent of an electron

shell. Here’s the correspondence:

1 vortex pair (1 torus) corresponds with the 2 electrons of the s shell.

3 nested vortex pairs in a cube correspond with the 6 electrons of the p shell.

5 nested vortex pairs in a dodecahedron correspond with the 10 electrons

of the d shell

7 nested vortex pairs in an icosahedron correspond with the 14 electrons

of the f shell.

So matter is the stable flow form pattern emerging from the ether. It takes on

geometrical shapes from a formless energy, creating the illusion of separate electron

particles in the electron shells and the particles that make up the nucleus.

Another way of looking at the torus shape is regarding it as a form that can be

perfectly described by a set of Phi spirals.

22
 Phi spirals in nested doughnuts (Figure I)

(Winter, n.d.)

Each Phi spiral is actually a series of pure sine waves. It is a well-known principle

in physics that any complex wave shape can be created from the sum of simpler pure sine

waves with different frequencies and amplitudes. This principle is called the Fourier

principle. The Phi spiral is constructed from a series of harmonics with wavelengths that

comply with the Golden Mean version of the Fibonacci sequence:

When pure sine waves with wavelengths of the above frequencies are added together,

they will form a perfect Phi spiral.

23
 (Winter, n.d.)

(Figure I-2)

When these Phi spirals circle around the torus they meet and interfere. As a result

of this interference two new additional waves will be created. What is important to notice

is that both new waves will have wavelengths that are again in the Fibonacci series. This

allows that the interference will be non-destructive since the interference will simply

result in more harmonics in the Fibonacci series.

While destructive interference is the norm in wave interference, the only

exception in nature is when the waves interfere with Golden Mean ratio wavelengths! In

other words, the Phi spiral can re-enter itself around the torus shape without destroying

itself. So the Phi spiral is the universe’s only possible way to nest and become self-

organizing. This is how stable matter can be formed from electromagnetic energy as a

form of pure wave interference.

24
 Electromagnetic energy in a straight line is what we usually call light. When this

same light chases its own tail around the surface of the torus shape we call it matter. In

other words the atom is pure electromagnetic energy in a coil, that we no longer perceive

as light but as matter, or to put it in Daniel Winter’s own words (Winter, n.d.):

So now we have this dualism that waves in a line are energy and waves in a circle

are mass, and because we don’t know how the wave got into a circle from the line

and out, we conceive mass as separate from energy. E=MC^2 simply said that yes

loop the speed of light back around on itself, and you made mass of energy.

The Golden Mean spirals of the torus shape eventually spiral into a perfect zero still

point in the nucleus of the vortex that coincides with the nucleus of the atom. So these

sine waves implode inwards into increasing smaller wavelengths. The implosion of the

Golden sine waves into smaller and smaller wavelengths not only increases the frequency

of the waves but also increases the speed of the waves to become super-luminal waves

(traveling faster than light). According to Winter (n.d.), this is what gravity really is, the

cascade of Golden Mean electromagnetic sine waves that gain an ever-increasing velocity

breaking the speed barrier of light. Einstein had always assumed that electromagnetism

and gravity were related and Daniel Winter explains us how this connection is

established.

When doughnuts are nested to form the electron shells of the atom, the only

requirement to continue this form of non-destructive interference is that these doughnuts

align according to the Platonic solid geometries. When these nested doughnuts inside the

25
atom are arranged according to the Platonic solids symmetries, all waves will rush into

the center of the atom, creating repetitive, recursive or fractal patterns that not only shape

the electron shells but also the nucleus. Eventually the fractal patterns disappear into a

zero point in the nucleus of the atom. The implosion of the electromagnetic waves into

shorter and shorter wavelengths is what gravity really is. In a way the torus is a miniature

black hole that attracts the light into itself creating gravity.

The convergence and concretization of universal energy into the material objects

of the universe, organic and inorganic, has as its basis vibrating wave energy that takes

the shapes or structures of the Platonic solids. One implication of this statement is that

all the elements of the periodic table are composed of atomic forces due to wave

vibrations (electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc) that produce the symmetries that we

know as the Platonic solids. These structures in some combination, including nested

fractals, form the elements of the universe. It is possible to present a new model of the

atom with all its constituent parts, based on the interaction of waves that have the shape

of the Platonic solids.

STANDING WAVE PARTICLE

If indeed all of matter is the result of waves, the first and most obvious question

is, what is waving. With ocean waves, water is waving; with sound waves, air is waving.

What is waving with electromagnetic and light waves? What is the substance behind it

all? If it is indeed a unified substance, is it a simple governing principle that we can wrap

our minds around, that is at the bottom, or is a basis of all the forms and forces that exists

26
as waves of this substance? This is what scientists have called the Holy Grail or unified

theory of everything. If it can be demonstrated that all formations are the result of wave

interactions, then I think we are very close to the said objective. We would need to

understand the behavior, the rules, the presentations, and the scope of these waves. These

can be approached by understanding the appearance of matter formations in the shape of

Platonic solids. It is by understanding these shapes that we can understand the wave

forces behind them.

Experiments in vibrations that produce the Platonic solids are very meaningful to

this approach. Experiments have been conducted showing that if a suspension containing

dispersed particles is vibrated at various frequencies that the suspension will organize in

the shape of a Platonic solid that matches the frequency. This gives evidence that sound,

or vibrating waves directly gives rise to formations.

The Divine Cosmos web site (Wilcock, n.d.) discusses how both the students of

Buckminster Fuller and his protege Dr. Hans Jenny devised clever experiments that

showed how the Platonic solids would form within a vibrating / pulsating 3D sphere. In

the experiment conducted by Fuller's students, a spherical balloon was dipped in dye and

pulsed with pure sine wave sound frequencies. A small number of evenly-distanced

nodes would form across the surface of the sphere, as well as thin lines that connected

them to each other. If you have four evenly spaced nodes, you will see a tetrahedron. Six

evenly spaced nodes form an octahedron. Eight evenly spaced nodes form a cube. Twelve

evenly spaced nodes form the icosahedron and twenty evenly spaced nodes form the

27
dodecahedron. The straight lines that we see on these geometric objects simply represent

the stresses that are created by the closest distance between two points for each of the

nodes as they distribute themselves across the entire surface of the sphere.

Figure J

(Wilcock, n.d.)

If the structure of matter is the result of standing waves in the form of Platonic

solids, then we should be able to explain the structure of the atom within this paradigm.

It is here that we can consider that the composition of particles, elements and molecules

is a result of the organization of various vibrating waves of force. The chemist’s

experiment with chemical reactions is an exercise of exchanging and/or combining

vibrating waves. It is an orchestra on the smallest scale. Even the splitting of the atom is

an exercise of changing the standing wave harmonies of the atom. It amounts to

changing the arrangement and order of nested platonic solids. I say order, because in this

model of the makeup of elements, the constituent parts of the atom, (nucleus, proton,

electron) as they are nodes of intersecting Platonic solids, they are integral parts of a

nested Platonic solid that equates to a lower order wave. How far this nesting goes may

28
be limited to Planck’s constant length; however in my mind at this point, I don’t see a

justification for placing a limit on it. This new way of modeling the atom must be

reconciled with known experimental evidence.

Blaze Labs Research website (Saviour, 2004) goes through details describing a new

model of the atom based on the standing wave view. Below are some of the properties of

this model.

• Each shell is equivalent to a polyhedral shell, and getting the right sequence of

shells is of primary importance in order to further develop the correct sequence of

polyhedral transformations for each equivalent quantum number. If quantum

numbers are unique, it then follows from our knowledge about the 6 unique basic

platonics (5+dual tetra), that all basic elements can be described by no more than

6 principal quantum numbers.

• With the new scheme the quantum numbers will match the lowest energy level

subshell of the shell. Quantum number 1 will thus match those subshells with total

electron count of 2, quantum number 2 will match those subshells with electron

count of 8 and so on.

• This new quantum numbering scheme now has the same filling order of the

subshells and the problem of jumping is totally eliminated during the subshells'

filling, with the electrons in full accordance to the present experimental data. In

the conventional model, this problem occurs for example at the filling of element

with atom no. 19 – Calcium; instead of 3d subshell filling, the subshell 4s is filled.

The same surprise occurs at the elements with atom no.37 - Rubidium and atom

29
 no.55 - Cesium. Also, in contrary to the conventional way of electron shell

configuration, with this new scheme, up to 56 basic elements can be contained

within the first 6 shells or 3 principle quantum numbers, and up to 120 basic

elements can be contained within 8 shells or 4 principle quantum numbers.

• The new model, apart from being much neater, can thus contain all known

elements by using just s,p,d,f shells, without the need to resort to higher shells g,h,

whose existence is not proven. Table 2 summarizes the proposed model.

• Each shell is equivalent to a polyhedra shell.

• 1s shell is a simple tetrahedron (2P+2N), the 1s' (conventional 2s) shell is then a

bigger tetrahedron, which inscribes the first tetrahedron.

• The 2p (conventionally known to contain 6 electrons, 3 upspin and 3 downspin) is

actually made up of 3 x 2s tetrahedrons, which together with the original 2s

tetrasphere, will pack together into a hybrid tetrahedral formation, to be inscribed

in a bigger spherical tetrahedron, which is the 2s shell (conventional 3s).

• This mechanism will repeat itself in exactly the same way for the opposite spin

quantum level. 3s shell will take the place of 2s shown in Figure K, 3p that of 2p,

and 4s that of 3s. This hybrid tetrahedron shell build up is no longer followed

after shell 4s, where the octahedron will emerge, and that explains why the

balance between protons and neutrons is lost for Z>20.

• a tetrahedron, having 4 vertices, is equivalent to an atom having 2 Protons + 2

Neutrons.

30
 • Note that at each complete shell stage, that is a formation of a complete platonic

shape, one of the spherical standing wave will always be a complete sphere

formed by the previous higher energy levels.

• For higher atomic numbers, one of the vertices of each complete platonic shell

will always be formed by a spherical platonic, which in turn can nest other

spherical platonics within it. It's a fractal build up.

The properties seem to point to a coherent model that can better predict the behavior

of particles and forces on the quantum and larger scales, than the current “hard particle

models”. Further analysis of the details of the wave particle theory is beyond the scope

of this paper, but, the reader is encouraged with the information presented herein, to

further contemplate the implications of this approach to understanding the formation of

matter and the presumed unified substance and laws governing our reality.

31
 Table 2 – Standing wave particle properties (Saviour, 2004)

No. of
No. of
Level Lowest level tetrahedron Electrons in
Vertices inscribed Z Z Z
(Quantum number) Platonic vertices subshell= Z/2 smax lmax max
tetrahedrons
P+N=Z
Tetrahedron + 4 1 4 2 (s) 2 2
1 = s,s' 4
Tetrahedron - 4 1 4 2 (s) 2 4
Dual
4 3 12 6 (p) 8 12
Tetrahedron +
2 = (p,s)(p,s)' 16
Dual
4 3 12 6 (p) 8 20
Tetrahedron -
Octahedron + 6 5 20 10 (d) 18 38
3 = (d,p,s)(d,p,s)' 36
Octahedron - 6 5 20 10 (d) 18 56
Cube + 8 7 28 14 (f) 32 88
4 = (f,d,p,s)(f,d,p,s)' 64
Cube - 8 7 28 14 (f) 32 120
Icosahedron + 12 11 44 22 (g) 54 174
5 = (g,f,d,p,s)(g,f,d,p,s)' 108
Icosahedron - 12 11 44 22 (g) 54 228
Dodecahedron
20 19 76 38 (h) 92 320
+
6 = (h,g,f,d,p,s)(h,g,f,d,p,s)' 184
Dodecahedron
20 19 76 38 (h) 92 412
-

32
The fundamental hybrid tetrahedral structure (Figure K)

(Saviour, 2004)

33
 DISCUSSION

THEORY OF EVERYTHING

The above discussion demonstrates details of a standing wave model of a particle,

and implies that there is a fundamental unifying force that underlies all of matter. This

concept points to the existence of a Unified Field Theory, sometimes called the Theory of

Everything (TOE, for short): which is the long-sought means of tying together all known

phenomena to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy in existence. The

advantage of a unified theory over many fragmented theories is that a unified theory often

offers a more elegant explanation of data, and may point towards future areas of study as

well as predict nature’s laws.

The implications of this paper is that all of matter is just an organization into

combinations of geometric forms, Platonic solids, and that what underlies these

formations is a unified substance that is waving thereby establishing forms. It is my

thinking that if we can understand how the Platonic solids are formed, their construction,

and also their proportions, that we may come closer to a unified theory of everything.

Perhaps the reader’s contemplation upon the building of these solids will provide insights

into the building of the universe. For this reason I have included in this paper

constructions on Platonic solids that I have created using the software Geometer’s

Sketchpad. I use the constructions as a model for the construction of all material forms

having already presented this idea in both generalities and details.

34
CONSTRUCTIONS OF PLATONIC SOLIDS – AN ANALOG FOR BUILDING

THE UNIVERSE

The study of the Platonic solids can lead to a deep perception into the very source

of the universe. It can reveal the basis of interrelations that sustain the world of forms

and governs their progression from the infinite, to the finite and back to the infinite.

Much of this discovery goes beyond what we learn in a typical geometry course and falls

in the domain of what is commonly referred to as sacred geometry, which is a metaphor

for universal order. In sacred geometry the progression of forms from the infinite to the

finite and back to the infinite is governed by the “sacred roots” of square roots of two,

three and five, and the golden mean ratio. Each root has its own special relevance in this

progression, and together are all that is necessary for the formation of the five Platonic

solids which are the basis for all volumetric forms. I aim to demonstrate, utilizing a

series of models that represent no less than the great universal axiomatic system in which

we live, that the irrational roots span the formation of the Platonic solids, hence all

volumetric forms.

Before viewing the models it is necessary to give a basic orientation that it helpful

for a deeper understanding of the models. For this I will give an excerpt from the book

Sacred Geometry by Robert Lawlor (Lawlor, 2003).

Those who use geometric figures to describe the beginning of Creation must

attempt to show how an absolute Unity can become multiplicity and diversity.

35
 [Absolute Unity is the presumed determiner or origin of all formed life.]

Geometry attempts to recapture the orderly movement from an infinite

formlessness to an endless interconnected array of forms and in recreating this

mysterious passage from One to Two, it renders it symbolically visible…

From both the metaphysical and natural points of view it is false to say that in

order to arrive at two, you take two ones and put them together. One only need

look at the way in which a living cell becomes two. For One by definition is

singular, it is Unity, therefore all inclusive. There cannot be two Ones. Unity

divides itself from within itself, thus creating Two… the creator unity and the

created multiplicity.

With the above orientation let us now proceed to the model of how the universe is

fabricated and how the three sacred roots span the formation of the five Platonic solids,

which are in turn the basis of all volumetric forms. Note that all of the constructions are

done in two dimensions, but can all be done in three dimensions as well. We proceed as

in biological cell division.

Axiom 1:

The undifferentiated, integral Unity that is the source and container of all that exists is

represented by the unit circle. Unity then divides itself into Two, and does so while

maintaining the original integral unity. This is represented by the intersection of two

36
circles at their respective centers. The intersection of the two circles with a common

radius is known as a “Vesica Piscis”.

Axiom2:

The first movement of this unity is a reflection of itself. This is the first duality. It is

likened to self awareness and is represented by the central dot of the circle.

Axiom 3:

The reflective unity replicates itself generating another circle stating at any point of the

circumference of the first circle and intersecting the first circle at its center. These stages

are represented in the figures below.

Fig. 1 Fig. 2

(Charles Gilchrist - http://www.charlesgilchrist.com/SGEO/SGIntro.html)

At this stage a Visica Piscis is formed. This formation has embedded within it all the

dynamics, or forces that will span all subsequent formation. These dynamics are

determined by the three sacred roots, √2, √3 and √5.

37
 Fig. 3 Fig. 4

The Vesica Piscis Two New Points - C and D

(Charles Gilchrist - http://www.charlesgilchrist.com/SGEO/SGIntro.html)

The formation of the Visica Piscis, as a result of the intersection of two unit circles, gives

rise to the formation of the three sacred roots as shown in the below diagram.

Fig. 5 Fig. 6

H I H I
C C

sq rt. 2

B O A B O A

sq rt. 3 sq rt. 3

sq rt. 5 D D
F G F G

Geometric proof of the Square Root of Three within the Vesica Piscis

Draw the major and minor axes CD and AB. Draw CA, AD, DB and BC. By

swinging arcs of our given radius from either centre A or B we trace along the vesica to

38
points C and D, thus verifying that lines AB,BC, CA, BD and AD are equal to one

another and to the radius common to both circles. We now have two identical equilateral

triangles emerging from within the Vesica Piscis. Extend lines CA and CB to intersect

circles A and B at points G and F. Lines CG and CF are diameters of the two circles and

thus twice the length of any of the sides of the triangles ABC and ABD. Draw FG

passing through point D.

By the same method as above, we can prove that FD and GD are also equal to the

sides of the triangles ABC and ABD.

If AB = 1, then DG = 1, CG = 2 and by the Pythagorean Therom the major axis CD =

√(CG squared – DG squared) = √3.

Fig. 7

H I
C

B A

D
F G

The double square divided by a single diagonal forms two right triangles, each

having a base of 1 and a height of 2. To find the geometric value of the diagonal we

apply the Pythagorean formula, a squared + b squared. = c squared. In this case, a = 1, b

39
= 2, therefore 1 squared + 2 squared = c squared or 1 + 4 = 5, so that the diagonal = √5,

and the semi-diagonal of a single square = √5/2.

A similar proof can easily be done to prove that the diagonal of a single square

with sides of length 1 is the square root of two.

It is said in Sacred Geometry as the division of Unity symbolized by the two-

dimensional square yields the √2 function, so the division of Unity symbolized by the

cube (representing three-dimensional volume) yields the √3 function. The diagonal of a

cube of length one is √3.

I also reference Robert Lawlor, in one of the best books available on Sacred

Geometry who states that the √3 contained within the Vesica Pisces is “the formative

power giving rise to the polygonal ‘world’” (Lawlor, 2003, p.34)

Let us now continue with the universal axiom system.

Axiom 4: The process of self replication can be repeated without limit.

This is depicted in the below pattern of the universe. This pattern is the basis of all

forms. All the intersecting points represent nodes of intersecting forces. It is the

interplay of these forces that give rise to the forms of the universe. Incidentally this

pattern was found on a Seti I temple wall at Abysos in Egypt, implying that the Egyptians

had some intrinsic knowledge of its symbolic relevance in universal formation.

40
Fig. 9 Fig. 10

Four circles of common radius at points (E, F, G, & H), followed by the first two

circles in nature’s first pattern in the center of the diagram.

(Charles Gilchrist - http://www.charlesgilchrist.com/SGEO/SGIntro.html)

Now that we have the formative pattern of the universe, let us now investigate

how the Platonic solids are generated from within this pattern. Let us examine any three

collinear circles from the universal pattern. Notice that we can find the double square

using three unit circles just as we did with just two circles as shown in the below

diagram. The three roots are still the determiner of the double square. The double square

and the roots that determine it are the basis of the five Platonic solids.

41
Fig. 11

From 6 to 4 = Sqrt 3 CD = Sqrt 5 From C to E = Sqrt 2

C A
6 1

5 E 2

4 3
B D

Now I will show with a series of subsequent diagrams that I created in

Geometer’s Sketchpad how where the Platonic solids come from. We start with the

construction of the hexagon based upon the Vesica Piscis. The double square will be

embedded in the Hexagon. The steps are as follows:

Fig. 12 Hexagon

C E

B A F

D G

With our Vesica ABCD, swing an arc from C as centre and original radius 1 = CB,

cutting the second circle at E. Repeat with D as centre cutting the circle G. Repeat again

with either E or G as centre cutting the circle at F. Draw hexagon BCEFGD.

42
 Now that we have the hexagon we proceed with the simultaneous generation of

the Platonic solids within the icosahedron.

Fig. 13 Fig. 14

C A
6 1

10 7
C A
6 1

5 9 O 11 2
M
5 2

4 3
4 3
B D B D

Starting with the above circle having radius OA and inscribed hexagon, draw vertical

diameter AB. Mark each apex of the hexagon with numbers 1 to 6 and draw in the three

diagonals 1-4, 2-5, 3-6. With the midpoint M as centre and radius MA, draw an arc to

intersect radius O-2 at point 11. Line MA = (Square root 5)/2 and will divide radius O-2

into the proportion one divided by Phi, and the segment 11-2 is one divided by Phi

Squared. Thus the Square root 5 has an intimate relation to Phi. Draw circle with radius

O-11 and at the places where this circle intersects the radii of the hexagon mark a point

and designate with the numbers 7 to 12.

43
 Fig. 15 Icosahedron

C A
6 1

10 7

5 9 O 11 2

12 8

4 3
B D

Points 7,8, and 9 form one of the 20 faces of the icosahedron. This face, like the other

19, is an equilateral triangle, shown here in true proportion since it is parallel to the plane

of the picture. It can be seen that through Phi, the icosahedron takes form.

I could proceed with the above points to construct all of the remaining Platonic

solids. However, there is another method to derive the 5 Platonic solids that I will

describe after this brief taken from Michael Schneider’s Beginners Guide to Building the

Universe, on how the Platonic Solids are the basis for all forms in nature.

Geometric manifestations go from light through energy to matter. A sphere

represents undifferentiated light, stirs, polarizing into opposites symbolized by

two intersecting circles”. The two poles swirl in opposite directions in

mathematically precise rhythmic energy patterns, represented by spiraling cones.

44
The sphere becomes a whirling energy field displaying lines of force upon which

atoms configure to manifest material, visible volumes.

The tetrahedron continuously occurs in organic and inorganic chemistry and in

the world’s submicroscopic structures. Its geometry frames the architecture of

many elementary molecules, including methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6) and

ammonium (NH3), the basis of amino acids, the building blocks of life. In each

of these three molecules, a carbon or nitrogen atom sits at the center of a

tetrahedron at whose four corners are smaller hydrogen atoms. The similar

charges of the hydrogen atoms’ electron pairs cause them to go as far as they can

from each other. The result is a tetrahedron, the only three-dimensional shape

whose corner is the same distance from every other corner.

The carbon atom of diamonds is linked as a tetrahedral structure. The short bonds

between atoms ensure the diamond’s great strength.

Variations of the five volumes (platonic solids) are the basis for all crystals. The

first manifestations of the universe are geometric. From hydrogen to uranium, all

ninety two natural atoms of the periodic table that compose minerals and crystals

are geometric. At the borderline between nonliving forms and living creatures are

the cold, herpes, and Aids viruses which take form as Platonic volumes. Salt

crystal, sodium chlorine (NaCl) atoms tightly pack along cubic lines of force.

45
 The implication here is that from Unity, there is a mystical division of the Unity,

while there is still the underlying presence of Unity. This is represented by the Visica

Piscis. This formation, the intersection of two spheres, has embedded within all the

forces necessary to construct the five Platonic solids, which in turn are the basis for all

volumetric forms.

Here is another means of deriving the five Platonic solids. We proceed from the

universal axioms to construct what is termed in sacred geometry, “the egg of life” and

“the fruit of life” as shown below in black. I will leave it to those interested to research

the esoteric meaning of these terms.

Fig. 16 Egg of Life Fig. 17 Fruit of Life

46
 If we extract this arrangement of circles from the figure, which is embedded in the

universal pattern discussed earlier, and connect all the centers, we get the below figure.

We can find all the lines and points that determine each of the Platonic Solids from this

Metatron’s Cube.

Fig. 18 Metatron’s Cube

47
Fig. 19 Double Cube

Fig. 20 Two Star Tetrahedrons

STAR TETRAHEDRON

48
Fig. 21 Two Octahedrons

TWO OCTAH EDRONS

Fig. 22 Two Icosahedrons

TWO ICOSAHEDRONS

49
Fig. 23 Pentagonal Dodecahedron

PENTAGON AL DODECAHEDRON

Below is an example of a platonic created from the 3D Egg of Life.

Melchizedek, D. (2001)

(http://www.floweroflife.org/teachings.htm)

Fig. 24

50
 The last figure I will show demonstrates that the two methods of deriving the five

Platonic solids are essentially the same. I show this by superimposing a portion of the

“egg of life” on the central circle determined by the division of the unit circle by Φ as

shown in below.

8
3

Fig. 25

Now that we have completed the derivations of the Platonic solids, which are

based upon the intersection of unit circles or spheres at their centers, which in turn form

the interrelationships of the three sacred roots, I would like to comment further about the

interrelations of the sacred roots. Einstein, towards the end of his life occupied himself

with the unified theory of everything. That is, he wanted to express in mathematical

terms an equation that would relate all the forces of nature. With this he would bring

together the field of quantum mechanics, or the study of forces governing small bodies

and the study of forces governing large bodies. This was to be his crowning

51
achievement. He did not succeed and even today many are still struggling to get a handle

on this problem.

MORE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PLATONIC SOLIDS

Golden Proportion within the Platonic solids

Perhaps contemplation on the interrelationships within the Platonic solids will

give insights into a unified theory. Contemplation on the golden proportion within the

Platonic solids, for example, will likely provide insights into the progression of forms

from Unity to infinite diversity while yet maintaining a relationship to the original Unity.

The golden proportion is a proportional division expressed in two terms. This occurs

when the smaller term is to the larger term in the same way as the larger term is to the

smaller plus the larger. It is written a:b::b:(a+b). The largest term (a+b) must be a

wholeness or unit composed of the sum of the other two terms. This unique proportion is

designated by the sign Φ.

Consider two cases. In the first, a line is divided in such a way that the whole line

is larger than Unity or 1. Unity is defined as the segment b with the segment a, an

extension of it, attached to it making the whole line a + b. In the second case, the value

of Unity is shifted from the part to the whole, so that its divisions must be less than 1.

These two cases combined to form the Progression by the Golden Division expressed as:

…1/ Φ^3: 1/ Φ^2:: 1/ Φ^2: 1/ Φ::1: Φ:: Φ: Φ^2:: Φ^2:: Φ^3…etc.

52
Nested Platonic Solids

With the above in mind let us revisit the models of the Platonic solids. I have

shown that using the lines and points that are governed by the sacred roots, and the

golden mean division of the unit circle with the use of the √5 measure, that we can

construct not only the Platonic solids, but also the same solid embedded within a given

solid. In fact all of the solids can be found within icosahedron. The following is from the

book by Robert Lawlor (Lawlor, 2003):

Not only does the projection of the internal radii of the icosahedron form the

edges of the dodecahedron but reciprocally the projected radius of the

dodecahedron produces the edges of the icosahedron. This alternating projection

of one from out of the other is a geometric fact.

If we connect all the internal vertices of the icosahedron by drawing three lines

from each one connecting it to the ones opposite, and then from the two upper

vertices draw four lines to the opposite ones, and allow these lines to converge at

the center, we will in so doing form naturally the edges of a dodecahedron. This

is a generation which happens by itself through the crossing of the internal

radiants of the icosahedron. Once we have established the dodecahedron we can,

simply by using six of its points and the centre, form a cube. Simply by using the

diagonals of the cube we are able to form the star-tetrahedron or interlocking

tetrahedron. The intersections of the star-tetrahedron with the cube give us the

53
 perfect positioning to form an inscribed octahedron. Then within the octahedron,

using again the lines given by the internal radiants of the icosahedron, along with

the points of the octahedron, there arises a second icosahedron. We have gone

through a complete cycle, through five stages, from seed to seed. This then is an

infinite progression.

If the cube is given the dimension of 1, then the side of the outer icosahedron will

equal Φ and the dodecahedron will have a side length of 1/ Φ. The interlocking

tetrahedron will have a side of √2. The octahedron will have a side of 1/√2, and

the side of the new, small, inner icosahedron will be 1/ Φ^2: a stunning

constellation of harmonies. (p. 103)

Thus the Progression by the Golden Division discussed earlier is expressed in infinite
nested Platonic solids, where each level of nesting has an intimate relation to the levels
above and below.

54
 CONCLUSION

I close by saying that any form, no matter how large or small, has an intimate

connection to the originating Unity. From our discussion on nested Platonic solids and

the Progression by the Golden Division we can begin to see that even as there is infinite

division of Unity, that there is always present an underlying relationship of the diversity

to the originating unity. Though this is seemingly a simple statement, as a theory of

everything is expected to be a simple statement expressed as a formula no more than an

inch long, this statement has far reaching implications to how one views the universe and

his/her relationship to it. It can lead to many benefits in scientific advancements as well

as industrial/energy utility.

55
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wilcock, D. (n.d.). Sacred geometry in the quantum realm. Retrieved 3/1/2006, from
Divine Cosmos Web site: http://www.ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/03.htm.

Diggins, J. E. (1965). String, Straightedge, and Shadow. New York: Viking Press.

Lawlor, R. (2003). Sacred Geometry. New York: Thames & Hudson.

Marshall, D. N. (1976/7). Carved Stone Balls. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries

of Scotland, 180, 40-72.

Math Pages Web site: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath096.htm.

Melchizedek, D. (1985). The ancient secret of the flower of life: volume 1. Flagstaff, AZ:
Light Technology Publishing.

Schneider, M. (1995). Beginners Guide to Building the Universe: Mathematical

Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science. New York: HaperCollins Publishers.

Platonic solids and Plato's theory of everything. (n.d.). Retrieved 3/1/2006, from Math
Pages Web site: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath096.htm.

Saviour, I. (2004). The particle - the wrong turn that led physics to a dead end. Retrieved
1/3/ 2006, from BlazeLabs Research Web site: http://blazelabs.com/f-p-develop.asp.

Sutton, D. (2002). Platonic & Archimedian Solids. New York: Walker & Company.

Winter, D. (n.d.). Ether vibrations. Retrieved 3/1/ 2006, from Souls of Distortion Web
site: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter6.html.

56