Jump to content

Talk:Tetrahedral hypothesis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
geology project
Line 25: Line 25:
extracts on
extracts on
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe34.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe34.htm

And Hoagland:
http://www.antroposofi.org/TomMellett/geosophical.html

Revision as of 14:50, 19 August 2014

WikiProject iconGeology Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconTalk:Tetrahedral hypothesis is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notes on my Rewrite

This page began as a result of my fumblings with Platonic Solids (see the discussion in Tetrahedron in July 2009), in an attempt to understand Holmes's reference. I felt the subject deserved a more sympathetic treatment. I'd appreciate a hand with the references, and maybe the removal therefrom of Qazi, whose work is maybe a bit dodgy and ill-presented. Thanks very much to the fellows who supported my fumblings, without whom I'd never have understood the matter. John Wheater (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Talk:Tetrahedron#Minimum Volume property? —Tamfang (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using inline citations

However one was mentioned in the body: (see Nature magazine, June 1920) which I cannot find in the Nature index. It did not give the title of the article (left as an exercise to the next editor?) I will cite the actual article on continental drift unless someone comes up with a 1920 source. W Nowicki (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Steiner (and Moreux) reference(s)

Steiner: read further on the link below

I want to explain something that is little spoken of today but which is nevertheless true. You hear it said everywhere, don't you, that the earth is a globe, has formed itself as a globe. Now actually it is not true that the earth is a globe! I will explain to you what the earth really Is. It is only fantasy that the earth is a globe. If we picture the earth's true form as a regular solid, we come to what in science is called a tetrahedron.

Lecture 18-Sep-1924 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA354/English/RSP1987/19240918p01.html

also see eg Moreux: extracts on http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe34.htm

And Hoagland: http://www.antroposofi.org/TomMellett/geosophical.html