Art Gallery

[Turtle]

The set of images below show how to recreate the images. Unfortunately you will probably require the exact same hardware to produce these images. The images were captured at what could be considered as a Poincare section of a photon loop normalised along the time dimension. It's a bit like a Lorenz Attractor plot where the calcs don't go to the extremes and are fuzzed out by the optical and electronic lag (i.e. close to full circle not a convoluted one).

 

Cool stuff Laurie. :) I don't quite understand the whole setup, but it looks interesting. Is this device your own invention? :shrug:

[Turtle]

If you don't understand what magick is, just look at my sketches.

That is a direct example of a projection of my psyche that I transcended with time.

Another example of magick is what happens in your mind when you look at the visions.

Enjoyish, peace for now

 

Do you exhibit your work anywhere? Do you sell it?

 

Sometimes I tell myself I'm making my art for myself; then I give myself five-across-the-eyes and admit I make it to show people. :shrug:

[Queso]

well those were just sketches. they've already been burned.

sometimes I give them away to my friends if they show interest.

I'm not good enough, nor dedicated enough, to exhibit my art elsewhere.

Except for the occassional brick wall.

These streets need more visionary art.

 

I like it when people like what I've made.

I also like to watch it burn.

[Turtle]

well those were just sketches. they've already been burned.

sometimes I give them away to my friends if they show interest.

I'm not good enough, nor dedicated enough, to exhibit my art elsewhere.

Except for the occassional brick wall.

These streets need more visionary art.

 

I like it when people like what I've made.

I also like to watch it burn.

 

You wouldn't be the first to destroy you own work, but that in itself is an artistic statement. That you tell others you burn your work is little different than showing them the art.

 

Don't underestimate your talent or dedication. I keep telling myself Grandma Moses didn't start painting until she was 80 years old. Now I'm telling you. :) ;)

 

I jump from obsession to obsession like a bug on a griddle, but I'm cookin' with making art recently and I want to know as much about the business end of it as the rest. :) :hihi:

[Queso]

You should. Your artwork is amazing, and to me has so much hidden meaning (because I am not a great mathemagician such as yourself)

 

Godspeed with that.

 

It's not that I underestimate my talent or dedication.

I know I can draw trippy ****, but I'm not dedicated because I just don't really care.

It's something fun to do sometimes. Been sketchin' since I was a babe.

 

I like to make art out of sticks and leaves and moss and stuff.

That burns too.

 

My greatest art is that of mind. Will transcend later.

[Turtle]

You should. Your artwork is amazing, and to me has so much hidden meaning (because I am not a great mathemagician such as yourself)

 

Godspeed with that.

 

It's not that I underestimate my talent or dedication.

I know I can draw trippy ****, but I'm not dedicated because I just don't really care.

It's something fun to do sometimes. Been sketchin' since I was a babe.

 

I like to make art out of sticks and leaves and moss and stuff.

That burns too.

 

My greatest art is that of mind. Will transcend later.

 

:shrug: I have to wonder how one 'burns' art that only exists electronically? Even if one deletes the file, if it went on the web others may have very well copied it. :) :(

 

Here's just such a piece. It is the Egyptian Ankh found by coloring select adjacent sections of the vesica piscis flower I posted earlier. May it ever burn. :hihi:

[Queso]

The ankh reminds me of one thing: Ascension.

Blocking all directions but UP!

[Queso]

Just for kicks I printed it out.

Next time I burn, so will you.

 

Here's some artwork I've found on the internet.

The artists are unknown. (except for the naked Bodhisatva sporting the gas mask, that's me :) )

[LaurieAG]

Cool stuff Laurie. :) I don't quite understand the whole setup, but it looks interesting. Is this device your own invention? :cup:

 

Hello Turtle,

 

Optical feedback loops have been around since the 1960's, when people could start to play around with (very expensive) video equipment.

 

The part that is original is from image 3 on extending it by putting my finger into the picture (that doesn't appear) to get some new outputs/insights. I've only created the full blown ring twice after many hundreds of attempts. It is quite an amazing sight, a pity that I didn't grab any screen shots (because the capture screen file location box etc gets fed back into the developing image).

 

I didn't expect that 2 mirrors would turn image 2 into a fractal either (possibly something in fractal maths repeating) though they don't look like any fractals that I have seen.

 

I recently re-read "Does God Play Dice?: The Mathematics of Chaos" by Ian Stewart and started to realise what I did when I created these images around 7-8 years ago. The Poincare section and the Lorenz attractors are attempts to graphically model what happens when a rotating object goes full cycle and -180 degrees turns into +180 degrees.

 

While my main concern about this model is the fact that the computer screen is written line by line many times a second, this actually works out quite well to remove any unnecessary minor calculations that could go on ad finitum and stop things from working in 'real time'. The collective lag in the whole thing (including the extra screen area) is large enough to allow quite 'pure' objects to appear on screen (yes the images are exactly what you see on the screen from any forward viewpoint, no time travel allowed) and be repeated almost indefinitely.

 

While the Orb state is stable and is difficult to disrupt once it is set up, the ring, while it will go on indefinately if left on its own, is relatively unstable and will revert back to the orb whenever it is disturbed.

 

I also realise (today) that the Blue and Orange (RED) images are examples of red and blue shift, i.e too close and too far.

 

I really think that someone should look into the maths behind this device as it's the only working spin model that I have seen that can replicate:-

(1) an Einstein Ring (because it is cyclic the trapped shadow acts like a planet)

(2) Fractals

(3) Bose Einstein concentrate (the orb)

(4) Red and Blue shift

 

To name a few, with only 3 angular and 1 distance variation.

 

And I haven't really seen too many working models of anything cosmological.

 

It's a bit funny Turtle, I've always wondered how you would ask a quantum computer a question and how you would ever interpret the answer given. The answer is something like 'first create your quantum computer'.

[Turtle]

Hello Turtle,

 

Optical feedback loops have been around since the 1960's, when people could start to play around with (very expensive) video equipment.

 

Ahhhh...so the camera is a video camera feeding the monitor? And it is aimed at mirrors which are reflecting the monitor image? Interesting.

 

Just for kicks I printed it out.

Next time I burn, so will you.

 

:D Very clever mo mever! :lol: Burn this too biatch. :cup: :)

 

croix cramponnee in the vesica piscis flower

 

[Queso]

Especially because it's pointing at me.

[Turtle]

Especially because it's pointing at me.

 

so goes the hook. :hyper:

 

...I didn't expect that 2 mirrors would turn image ...

Hello again Laurie.

 

I have some further thoughts on your apparatus.

 

Presuming you have used back-silvered mirrors, you add secondary reflection from the glass, as well as introduce bending as the light changes medium from air, to glass, and glass to air, as well as internal reflections inside the glass between the silvering and the inner glass/air interface of the mirror.

 

The thickness and chemical composition of the glass, its optical flatness, and its thickness also affect the reflected image from a back-silvered mirror.

 

I cannot say how using front-silvered mirrors would change your results; I can only that it will. :shrug: :)

[Queso]

I got an interesting perspective last night.

Yes it's pointing up down left right.

But what about toward me, and toward the abyss of the internet, or the inside of my laptop screen?

I stare at your vesica piscis for many moments.

 

The gypsy with her crystal ball.

 

I hope to dream of your vesica piscis in three dimensions.

I've studied your instructions, I know I havn't posted anything...

My experiments have been rather messy. All my life everything I've ever constructed has not been perfect. Every song and every tree house.

Everything I've ever had has been destroyed unintentionally and oppositely.

 

You really inspire me. :)

[Turtle]

I stare at your vesica piscis for many moments.

 

The gypsy with her crystal ball.

 

I hope to dream of your vesica piscis in three dimensions.

I've studied your instructions, I know I havn't posted anything...

My experiments have been rather messy. All my life everything I've ever constructed has not been perfect. Every song and every tree house.

Everything I've ever had has been destroyed unintentionally and oppositely.

 

You really inspire me. :)

 

:) :( Now iz zee time zat vee takk. The vesica piscis itself is not mine; it is everyones'. Only the flower is mine. Drawing the flower mechanically by hand, i.e. with pencil & paper, is a messy proposition for anyone, including me. The precision & neatness I achieved with the uncolored blank is more easily got using electronic drawing tools. :D

 

Keep at the mechanical means though as practice makes better. Whenever I make something with a bad gaff, I claim it's a Persian flaw if someone points it out. :doh: Of course I'm lying when I say that because I strive for perfection. My persian flaw lie is a persian flaw. :hyper:

 

I worked up a polychrome coloring of the vesica piscis flower last night; the colors & their positions I chose as randomly as my pineal allows. This one will give your printer a workout. :D :shrug:

 

PS Do the lines print out 'pixelated'? I have high-res versions of the drawings 2800 pixels square and shrankified them before posting to save space.

 

[Drip Curl Magic]

Turtle,

I love it.

 

 

:hyper: :) :shrug: :doh:

[Turtle]

Turtle,

I love it.

 

 

:eek2: :D :hyper: :)

 

 

And I love you for saying so, so succinctly. Takk! :(

 

You motivated me so much so, that I went & pulled a 70 minute marathon session on chacmool's blues and put on the last pieces of paper. It is not finished, but it is done. Here's a video time-lapse spanning the last 3 months and documenting the progression of the construction of the collage. :cup:

 

Post Script My roomy Ace is getting to be a whiz on the video editing. He just helped me edit the time-lapse video so it runs faster and now it has music! Woot woot!! :D ;) :cup:

YouTube - f8 chacmool's blues - 3 month time-lapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAXGrpQoRco

[LaurieAG]

Ahhhh...so the camera is a video camera feeding the monitor? And it is aimed at mirrors which are reflecting the monitor image? Interesting.

 

Hello Turtle,

 

Actually the camera is a small PC camera on a 3 way mount as per the setup image. The 2 mirrors are at right angles to each other and are placed so that they touch the screen so the lines you can see are probably a result of both the mirror backing depth and the clear protective front part of the monitor.

 

I used an old, but sturdy, camera tripod that had a base plate that could rotate 90 degrees. The thing that impressed me so much about the mirror image captures is that the patterns appear flat and consistent even though the loop is only passing through a small part of the screen itself.

 

Also, the 'black hole' image, when fully expanded into the full ring, led me into thinking that the photons travelling between the monitor screen and the cameras ccd is actually a persistent cone of light with a hollow (dark) center caused because the shadow created by my finger had been trapped in the loop.

 

It was after thinking about this apparatus (I informally call it a "Shadow Trap") and the output gained from quite obvious spin, that I started thinking about how our planet rotates around the sun and our solar system rotates around the center of our galaxy. I wondered how another solar system very similar to ours would look from a fixed observation point (i.e. our own solar system at a discrete point in time) where the distance between the solar systems (point sources of light with planetary 'fuzz') was longer than the time it took for the light to travel between the two points.

 

That's when I started plotting the path that the light would follow as it left one point and travelled to the other. When you reverse the paths (how the observation point will receive the light) and plot the end elevation you get a a spiral cone of light that looks remarkably like one half of what we call a 'spiral galaxy'. Adding another point source of light (solar system) on the opposite side of the galactic center (or GOG of both solar systems, binary star system) gives an end elevation that resembles a 'spiral galaxy'.

 

Just after I drew up my image there was an article in the New Scientist magazine that reported how two repeating patterns of changing intensity had been discovered in the light from a quasar. I was surprised that the repeating patterns were very similar to the two light paths you get from the plot that I had drawn up.

 

This is the path I took that led me to believe that 'spiral galaxies' with their ever present 'black holes' are optical illusions created by spin. Once you get rid of the illusion that many of the vast structures we see in space are actually much smaller structures that appear to be much larger it's easy to see that the problems of 'dark matter' etc can be resolved by removing the spin component. i.e. 100 percent perceived real matter and 20 times around our galactic center gives us 5 % 'real' universal matter. Anyway I'll continue later.

 

I call the first image 'big brother' and the other one is the 'spiral galaxy' plot (slightly incomplete).