Fibonacci Numbers and Nemetics

One Introduction to Fibonacci Numbers http://www.buygoldco.com/introduction-fibonacci-numbers/

The visualization software allows one to "Add Borders." Consider "Borders" as a surrogate for "Constraints."

The Set Up

Three and Five points. Both are Fibbonaci Numbers

Figure 1. No  Constraints  2 d view.

Figure 2. No Constraints one 3d view.

Figure 3. Constraints 2D view.

Figure 4. Constraints 3d View

Transitions : Free neme Exchange within Authentic Constraints

Figure 1. Low frequency - constraint is the edge of the box

Figure 2. High Frequency creates coherence.

Figure 3. "chaos" although some coherence is visible.

Figure 4. With passage of 70 sec. Coherence emerges from "chaos"

Figure 5 - 7 Show an incremental approach to coherence.

Increasing authentic constraints slowly.

Note: Figure 8 is a condition of Free Neme Exchange within the Authentic Constraints.

 Figure 6

 Figure 7

 Figure 8

.

Is nemetics fractal?

Paula Thornton ‏@rotkapchen

" @toughLoveforx I can 'see' the voids for sidelights, but I also see our 'sidelights' (tweetstreams) as flows too. Conflicted." 

So that got me thinking about the fractal nature of nemetics. I think it can work like this. 

NemiTubes are areas where friction of neme exchange is minimal, similar to the ease of conversation in a tribe, a group, a team or the inside of a cell.  At human scale friction is reduced when we "speak the same language." At the cellular level proteins are reduced to standard info carriers. ATP as the energy carrier might be the clearest example.

Below are different scales of the same image.   Nemitubes repeat all the way down. In each case neme Exchange occurs. Neme exchange also occurs inside of nemiStrings, but this simulator does not allow the visualization to get that granular. 

Thoughts? 

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Wave or Particle in Nemetics

" @toughLoveforx I'd never really considered nshapes as voids between ntubes. My nshapes were always in the tubes: infopackets "

Interesting point that got me thinking. My take as of today is that it goes to whether one looks complexity as waves or particles.  In the Sound Wave simulation Figure 1. is in waves. Figure 2 is precisely the same underlying complexity in particles. 

Figure 1.

Figure 2. 

In both images coherent patterns are nShapes. The rectangle merely points to corresponding areas of coherence. My view is that any area of coherence falls under the category of a nShape. So nemes, nStrings and nTubes all assume nShapes given a specific history and forces acting at the moment of observation. 

The wave view ( Figure 1. ) privileges the motion in a nField. Wave based patterns of energy.

The Particular view ( figure 2 ) enables looking down one level. Each ball represents a neme.  

The black areas in the particles view are similar to the light grey areas in the wave view. I think it's a useful distinction to call the Black areas an nTube nShape. The areas in which the nemes are aggregated into coherent patterns nString nShapes.