Think Draw - Picture - Inverse Square Law x 3.5

Title: Inverse Square Law x 3.5
created on 22 Jun 17

Please login to rate or comment:

Comments on this picture (31):
1. chelydra wrote: In my experience, drawing is the best, maybe even the only, way to understand mathematical concepts. The Inverse Square Law, f'instance...
2. chelydra wrote: When (real or imaginary or in-between) lines radiate out in all directions (360Â°) from a central point... The intensity of the force those lines represent (or carry or embody) diminishes in obedience to the inverse square law!
3. chelydra wrote: When you draw a still life of eggs on a table-top, below a single bare light bulb. you're actually drawing at least three, maybe four, manifestations of the ISL!
4. chelydra wrote: "Draw what you see" is great advice... don't draw what you THINK you see, or EXPECT to see, or what others might WANT to see... Draw what what you actually DO see! BUT....
5. chelydra wrote: ...even more important, at some point, is asking WHY you see what you see! And the answer in this case? What you're seeing is THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW doing its thing!
6. chelydra wrote: Here's how: (A) the light source, (B) the 'vanishing point', (C) the eggs themselvesâ€”as self-determining organic forms, and (D) the earth's core, the center and source of gravity.
7. chelydra wrote: None of this will make any sense at all until you let your mind's eye see each of these central points as the nucleus of a limitless sphere, expanding into infinity from that point of origin. Think in 3-D, or you won't get it.
8. chelydra wrote: (A) The tungsten filament inside the light bulb is furiously hot, spitting out photons in all directions... but each of those photons follows a straight line from the filament to Jupiter, Pluto, and beyond! (The light dissipates along the way, in obedienc
9. chelydra wrote: obedience to the Inverse Square Law, so people on the dark side of Jupiter probably couldn't ready by this light even if its photons were swirling around their planet instead of going in straight lines.)
10. chelydra wrote: (B) The Vanishing Point, contrary to popular belief (and the devious misteachings of the artistic Establishment) is NOT located on the far horizon. (What!!?? %$#@!! Heresy! Blasphemy! Pray tell, where IS it then? you may ask.)
11. chelydra wrote: It's inside your eyeball. (I'm not sure if it's the pupil or the retina or the point where the light rays converge on their way from lens to retina.) All the rules of classical perspective are derived from those Inverse Squares marching along in straight
12. chelydra wrote: ...lines from your eyeball out into your environment, and thence onwards unto the farther edges of the universe, etc etc etc
13. Fangzzz wrote: Love the concept - and what I know is if you are about to get nuked for every 1 distance you run you 1/4 your damage, so run a lot and draw the picture later. Before you become the vanishing point, lol.
14. chelydra wrote: FOOTNOTE to B: I say eyeball, not eyeballs, because depth perception (stereoscopic vision) takes into a whole other dimension â€”probably the Inverse CUBE law applies!
15. chelydra wrote: (C) The egg can be regarded as a sort of archetype of organic natural form... all multi-celled organic forms grow from a single speck, and how they grow is determined by both genetics and physics... Sadly, I don't suppose the Inverse Square Law actually a
16. chelydra wrote: Good point, Fangzzz! And to conclude (since I am supposed to send of a completed book cover design today and time is leaking away according to Lord only knows what kind of diminishing returns or whatever)... for (D), you'd probably be better off checking
17. chelydra wrote: ...out Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica, or whever it was he was inverting gravitational squares or squaring his inversions.... Bye for now...
18. chelydra wrote: A couple of loose ends to tie up (or to let run wild): 15 (above) ended with "a" while was to be the first letter of "applies". And the "inverse cube law" of stereoscopic perspective (in 14) has a precedent, or analogy, in nuclear energy (the "strong for
19. chelydra wrote: ...force, which is the "binding energy" that holds together atomic nuclei. You know how shoving together ++ magnets is hard work? And it gets rapidly harder as they get closer?
20. chelydra wrote: That's the Inverse Square Law at work; you can feel how the force increases exponentially as distance diminishes. The nuclear binding energy has to overcome that repulsion to build up nuclei.
21. chelydra wrote: The "strong force" is called that because it's so amazingly strong (duh). BUT its strength diminishes MUCH MUCH more quickly across distance than does the electromagnetic force it has to overcome.
22. chelydra wrote: All those ++ protons repelling each other are kept in line by the nuclear "binding energy" â€” but that diminishes across the diameter of a big atomic nucleus, and after you get to the upper end of the Periodic Table, the strong force, or binding ene
23. chelydra wrote: ... reaches its limitâ€” that's why big atoms are unstable and nothing lasts more than a nanosecond or two after #110 or so.
24. chelydra wrote: There is probably a valid analogy between nuclear>electromagnetic and depth perception>classical perspective, and if so . . . who knows . . .
25. katidid wrote: Oh my, most of this is way over my head. :-) Neat stuff.
26. chelydra wrote: over mine too! Could never do math to save my life.
27. Normal wrote: Glad you explained, as I was contemplating how one could turn a square inside out! Guess inverse is not the same as inverted...
28. Normal wrote: (OOPS. And inverted is not the same as everted.)
29. chelydra wrote: Hi Normalâ€”actually, it sounds like your math is a whole lot like mine, crude and uncomplicated, not very abstract, understood only with a titanic struggle.
30. chelydra wrote: I gather the Inverse Square was popularized (not quite the right word) by Isaac Newton, who used it in connection with gravity.
31. AFSOUTH wrote: Well, this is Outstanding!