nick
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by nick on Jan 27, 2017 13:45:26 GMT
Hi there. I'm trying to understand Ken Wheelers work partly through using the ferrocell. There's one particular point I'm currently trying to get my head round which I wonder if anyone can help me with?
The ferrocell -having a certain number of LEDs, shows the field pressure mediations in relation to that number of LEDs. I understand that the centripetal and centrifugal movement is going in opposite directions and therefore mediates itself in these curvilinear shapes.
My question is, -is there a distinguishable number of interweavings of these movements in the way that it appears with the LEDs? Or do these movements get ever more finer and finer the closer we would look? -ie -if we could see thousands of LEDs in a circle, would we see ever finer inter weavings?
Hope this is a clear enough question.
Thanks
Nick
|
|
|
Post by Timm on Jan 28, 2017 5:36:03 GMT
Nick "...ie -if we could see thousands of LEDs in a circle, would we see ever finer inter weavings?"
Yes. Think of each point of light as a pixel 'plane'- whereby the thickness of each plane is proportional to the diameter of the point of light. Thousands of tiny light sources would create a 'cloud' of ellipses or circles.
|
|
nick
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by nick on Jan 28, 2017 14:40:23 GMT
Hi Timm Thanks for your response. I think the difficulty I'm having might be because I'm trying to visualise the field like I would visualise currents in a moving fluid such as water. For example, a little like these pictures show: www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/cavity-waves-displaced-water-pineapple-wins-fluid-dynamics-competition/So, in this example, there are atoms which are forced by the physical movement and disparity of pressures into a distinguishable number of peaks and troughs. So, if I understood your response correctly -the oppositely 'flowing' pressures in the dielectric/magnetic field dynamically mediate without this number of internal distinguishable 'plattings'. Is that correct? Do you think my way of trying to think about this is a sign of being stuck in an atomistic way of visualising that simply does not apply in some way to these fields? Many thanks Nick
|
|