# Geometry in Surfboards

Thanks for all the input. I have a couple more questions.

1. How is geometry used while actually surfing? 2. How is geometry used to figure out how to catch the perfect wave?
1. surfers often triangulate using landmarks on the beach in order to locate themselves in the proper take-off spot for a particular break.

Hello Soup, it seems that there’s always an if, but, or maybe, and here goes another one! . . . . It is strange to hear about how one is supposedly using mathematical formulae when designing with geometrical curves. When I draw circular arcs and ellipses, I do so with a piece of string and a pencil, and one or two nails! It is misleading to equate mathematically definable curves with some kind of unfeeling, mechanical process. You state that:

Sure elipses, circles and sine waves are great, easier to calculate and draw, but those shapes rarely match the free flowing curves that mother nature and most surfboard shapers set loose in the sea.

This statement is certainly a queer one. There are many circular arcs to be found in the free flowing forms of sea creatures, and there are also curves which look remarkably like ellipses. Besides which, it is not necessarily the case that one has to copy sea creatures anyway. The inspiration which I was referring to was more of a direct insight or vision, than a suggestion from nature.

Is it possible to give us more information about your spline method, as I cannot make sense of it. Firstly, you state that a spline is “a basic geometric shape of surfboard templates” . Surely a spline is a drawing stick, not a curve? And is it not the case that such a stick can draw a large variety of curves using three or four nails? I don’t see how a stick and three or four nails will necessarily produce a curve which matches any formula at all.

Silverback,

Your post assumes that nature is the result of a trial and error process often described as Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. I must remind you that this is an unprovable theory, and that it is felt to be clearly defective by anyone with a conscious awareness of the existence of the Creator. My understanding is that all the works of the creator may be expressed using maths and geometry. I cannot prove this to you, but neither can you prove your random mutation and ‘selection by survival’ assumption.

I doubt whether the Druids whom you admire would accept your trial and error theory either!

Ambrose, I suspect that if a Hawaiian told you that he was aware of the spirit of his ancestors, that you would treat his statement with respect. I would appreciate it if you would proceed without your apparent assumption that any non Hawaiian is some kind of fake! I am not ‘Huckstering’ anyone out of anything! If you are going to continue to mock the idea that meditation on a subject can lead to enlightenment, then you are acting more like a machine head than those who you criticise. There is more than one path up the mountain. Please enjoy yours to the full.

Its all related to the field of mathematics.

Simple searches of the word ‘spline’ and ‘mathematics’

or polynomial approximation

would clear any confusion you may have.

Round and Round,

Tail Chasing.

Quote:

Hello Soup, it seems that there’s always an if, but, or maybe, and here goes another one! . . . . It is strange to hear about how one is supposedly using mathematical formulae when designing with geometrical curves. When I draw circular arcs and ellipses, I do so with a piece of string and a pencil, and one or two nails! It is misleading to equate mathematically definable curves with some kind of unfeeling, mechanical process. You state that:

Sure elipses, circles and sine waves are great, easier to calculate and draw, but those shapes rarely match the free flowing curves that mother nature and most surfboard shapers set loose in the sea.

This statement is certainly a queer one. There are many circular arcs to be found in the free flowing forms of sea creatures, and there are also curves which look remarkably like ellipses. Besides which, it is not necessarily the case that one has to copy sea creatures anyway. The inspiration which I was referring to was more of a direct insight or vision, than a suggestion from nature.

Is it possible to give us more information about your spline method, as I cannot make sense of it. Firstly, you state that a spline is “a basic geometric shape of surfboard templates” . Surely a spline is a drawing stick, not a curve? And is it not the case that such a stick can draw a large variety of curves using three or four nails? I don’t see how a stick and three or four nails will necessarily produce a curve which matches any formula at all.

A spline is a tool, not a curve. A spline of unspecified taper, and a non specific number of nails placed in unspecified positions, will not make a mathematically defineable curve. Are you actually saying anything at all, Halsose?

Quote:

Silverback,

Your post assumes that nature is the result of a trial and error process often described as Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. I must remind you that this is an unprovable theory, and that it is felt to be clearly defective by anyone with a conscious awareness of the existence of the Creator. My understanding is that all the works of the creator may be expressed using maths and geometry. I cannot prove this to you, but neither can you prove your random mutation and ‘selection by survival’ assumption.

I doubt whether the Druids whom you admire would accept your trial and error theory either!

Roy you misunderstand how science works.

do you understand what it takes to become a theory?

What most of us refer to as a theory wouldnt even qualify as a hypothesis.

There are few proofs with 100% certainty in science, the few there is are called laws like gravity etc.

There are many many things we use in the modern world that are based on theory and golly gee whilakers they work. Your computer works, nuclear bombs explode, all your electronics work. Many things wouldnt work without a working model or a theory. A solid theory makes predictions of what you will find in the future. A solid theory has many lines of evidence, observation and data. Theorys are subject to peer review by thousands of other scientists so of your theory is flawed youll know about it.

Evoloution is one of the most solid theorys in science today and the data to back it up could fill a library. To deny it is almost nonsensical.

I did not deny the existence of an evolutionary process at all. What I am saying is that the theory of random mutation and selection by attrition is unable to explain evolution or creation, except in a few minor and well publicised cases. It is far from being the ‘solid’ theory you claim it to be. Furthermore, an awareness of the existence of a conscious creative power is not something which can be destroyed by an evloutionary theory. You either have it or you don’t, and if you have it, you cannot deny it. It carries its own proof.

You misunderstand what is meant by the term ‘evolution’. Evolution is an inevitable result of the existence of a higher creative being. On the other hand, evolution is most decidedly not explained by the Darwinian theory of evolution, which fails in so many cases that I can only assume that it is still given support because people with no awareness of God can find nothing better. Filling a library with paper will not change this.

Geometry is everywhere!

RoyBoy,actually go look up ‘mathematics spline’

and then go back to chasing your tail.

Quote:

A spline is a tool, not a curve. A spline of unspecified taper, and a non specific number of nails placed in unspecified positions, will not make a mathematically defineable curve. Are you actually saying anything at all, Halsose?

Halsose,

The term spline comes from the spline gadget used by shipbuilders to draw smooth shapes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spline_(mathematics)

The term has since come to refer also to a mathematical system which defines a curve using control points. It is impossible to produce a defineable curve using the spline system if the number and position of the control points is not specified. You will please remember that Soup did not define the number or position of his control points.Thus for him to say that his ‘spline curve’ is superior to the ellipse or the circle is silly, because the curve was not defined.

I have no problem with Soup using his spline method, I was merely describing the method which I use. If, however, you and Soup expect to criticise my circle and ellipse method with any hope of success then they you had better start making more sense than you have so far.

Quote:

What I am saying is that the theory of random mutation and selection by attrition is unable to explain evolution or creation, except in a few minor and well publicised cases.

Biologists accept evoloution as a fact. The mechanism involved is the only question.

Quote:

It is far from being the ‘solid’ theory you claim it to be.

Well you better go tell all those scientists that they have no idea what their talking about and the mountain of data and observation is worthless.

Quote:

Furthermore, an awareness of the existence of a conscious creative power is not something which can be destroyed by an evloutionary theory. You either have it or you don’t, and if you have it, you cannot deny it. It carries its own proof.

You make an assertion with no support.

Quote:

You misunderstand what is meant by the term ‘evoution’. Evolution is an inevitable result of the existence of a higher creative being.

Another assertion with no support. Wheres your data to support this? How do you know my mighty snarfwiddgett isnt responsible for evoloution?

Quote:

On the other hand, evolution is most decidedly not explained by the Darwinian theory of evolution, which fails in so many cases that I can only assume that it is still given support because people with no awareness of God can find nothing better

The theory is still being refined and there is no other explantion that is supported by the data.

Roy you are an argumentative troll.

Is there not an argument that you will

not restructure and re-scope so that your

point of view will prevail.

you went from saying:

Quote:

Surely a spline is a drawing stick, not a curve? And is it not the case that such a stick can draw a large variety of curves using three or four nails? I don’t see how a stick and three or four nails will necessarily produce a curve which matches any formula at all.

Then you restructured so that you could prevail:

Quote:

It is impossible to produce a defineable curve using the spline system if the number and position of the control points is not specified. You will please remember that Soup did not define the number or position of his control points.

Then you throw in this ??‘superior’??nonsense to further muck

up any reasonable conversation:

Quote:

Thus for him to say that his ‘spline curve’ is superior to the ellipse or the circle is silly, because the curve was not defined.

Sort of like having a Bible argument over whether Wine is superior to

Water deducing from its holy uses by Jesus…start chasing your tail!.

Frankly with some of these discussions I find you to be a

Bully and a Rude person to alot of us, because for some strange reason your obsessed. You happen to think your the sharpest pencil in the drawer…

Why at times, your even playing the Spelling Card on us!!

–Correcting our spelling for sport!

People take your shite but eventually bite back.

Notice all the backbiting posts that come your way!

From my perspective , all this bullshite in your head aside,

your not a fair debater and your argumentive discourse is dishonest.

Quote:

If, however, you and Soup expect to criticise my circle and ellipse method with any hope of success then they you had better start making more sense than you have so far.

The only person who mentioned criticizing your methods is you!

Goodnight.

yeah, Roy, you are right, a spline is a stick for drawing, but it might also be the name of the line that is created. you would enjoy the video Shaping 101 that shows how to use a spline.

Hello Mr Troy,

You state that Biologists accept evoloution as a fact. The mechanism involved is the only question.

This is exactly my point. Evolution obviously happens, but how? By what mechanism? Biologists have not discovered any mechanism which works to explain evolution. The mechanism which works is the Creator, and since investigation of the existence of the creator is presently beyond science, we have an impasse. This impasse cannot be solved by dogmatically claiming that evolution is explained by science when it clearly isn’t.

Contrary to what you say, the vast majority of scientific work does not hinge upon the success or failure of Darwinian evoltionary theory. I am not denying that science is a useful tool by pointing out that the Dawinian theory is a poor predictive tool. Nor am I contradicting the results of scientific research. Darwinian evolutionary theory is not proven by scientific research,nor does scientific research exclude the existence of a creator.

You complain that I assert the existence of the creator without support. This is true. There are some things which cannot be given. I cannot graft my consciousness of the creator onto you. Am I supposed to lie and say that a consciousness of the creator is not self proving when I am aware that it is? We have another impasse.

You state that:

The theory (of Darwinian Evolution)is still being refined and there is no other explantion that is supported by the data.

This is a myth. There have been no advances in Darwinian theory since it was first formulated. Science has proceeded without using Darwinian evolutionary theory, which remains as a semi religious assumption vaguely assumed by science to be correct. In fact it is something of an embarrassing ‘skeleton in the cupboard’ to modern science, and is usually left alone.

Halsose,

If I remove the personal attacks, abuse, and misunderstandings from your post, then there is very little left.

Perhaps a discussion of geometry in surfing is not really your bag? Feel free to butt out.

Hello Soup,

I think that splining is absolutely brilliant. I also think that circular arcs are brilliant! I have no desire to assert that one is better than the other, I was just defending what I do, not attacking your method.

Ten points to the Great Architect of the universe, and his geometry set!

Quote:

This is exactly my point. Evolution obviously happens, but how? By what mechanism? Biologists have not discovered any mechanism which works to explain evolution. The mechanism which works is the Creator,

What you are giving me is commonly used by apologists. Essentially this is the “god of the gaps” explanation which basically is that we dont have the answer to this question so therefore godidit. For thousands of years people used this explanation and we learned nothing, nada. This is why science never ever uses a supernatural explanation because for every question a rational naturalistic explanation was always found.

Quote:

and since investigation of the existence of the creator is presently beyond science,

To look for something you need to define what you are looking for and there is no clear definition of god. If you have one please enlighten us.

Quote:

Darwinian evolutionary theory is not proven by scientific research,nor does scientific research exclude the existence of a creator.

Did you read my post? Once again there are few “proofs” in science.

Also biology in not involved in looking for a creator.

Quote:

You state that:

The theory (of Darwinian Evolution)is still being refined and there is no other explantion that is supported by the data.

This is a myth. There have been no advances in Darwinian theory since it was first formulated. Science has proceeded without using Darwinian evolutionary theory, which remains as a semi religious assumption vaguely assumed by science to be correct. In fact it is something of an embarrassing ‘skeleton in the cupboard’ to modern science, and is usually left alone.

This is either disingenuous or you lack a knowledge and understanding of evoloutionary theory. To add to this science had made many advances to evoloutionary theory, genetic/DNA research is one of the main ones. Like I said thousands of scientists are doing work on evoloution and your telling me essentially these people are basing their reputations and career on “a semi religious assumption vaguely assumed by science to be correct.”

So on one hand we have Roy saying no no godidit and on the other we have PHD scientists saying something else shrug tough call