Platonic solid wireframes

Here's the icosahedron:
   • Icosahedron wireframe (actual model) rotating  

Wiring: It's 12/2 NM-B Romex, which is a general purpose residential wiring. It comes in a roll, so you will have to straighten it out after stripping it

*****
There are five "Platonic" solids:
Tetrahedron, Cube, Octahedron, Dodecahedron, Icosahedron.
4, 6, 8, 12, 20 sides, respectively.

This video is a brief overview of a simple process used to solder and join 12 gauge copper electrical wires together for crafting purposes. I am using a propane torch, because I have found it to be simpler and safer than using a soldering gun. In fact, I've had very little luck using such a tool for this process, and if you want to debate with me about how wrong I am, please make sure that you have prior experience with both methods before commenting. In my experience, internet experts tend to have knowledge of the 'a priori' variety, and as such, these critiques without experience will be swiftly dismissed. Ahem: What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Historically, these shapes have often been suspected to be at the root of the mathematical structure of the universe, probably because of the complex relationships that they share, both to themselves and to nature. For a time, they were even considered elemental: You know, like earth, water, wind, fire, and aether. Modern physics now considers such patterns and relationships associated with these five shapes to be either nonsense or incidental, but that does not subtract from their inherent beauty.

The T,O, and I all have faces made from equilateral triangles, but the cube has faces of squares, and the D has faces of pentagons. Interesting tip: That's where the 3,4,5 is encoded into these shapes, which is a Pythagorean triangle. That means 3 squared plus 4 squared equals 5 squared, which is cool because those are all nice simple integer numbers, so such a triangle is useful to carpenters and the like.

The Pythagoreans (and Pythagoras) weren't the only people (besides Plato) who were enamored with these shapes; Kepler was convinced that they were at the heart of the fundamental governing geometry responsible for the motion of the planets. He worked tirelessly to produce a model that was consistent with the five shapes and observation, and despite beautiful and complex attempts, he was never able to do so. Don't feel bad for him- he did eventually provide us with the elliptical explanation for how bodies orbit, which revolutionized our understanding, and secured his name a spot in all future science books. And besides, he was still way more normal than Isaac Newton.