You can improve your wifi router's range up to 40% by feeding it a macrobiotic diet and having it meditate inside a pyramid made of crystals.

*also works for penis size

Man, that looks a lot like photos of somebody waving lightsticks around.

No. Just no.

So you're projecting your model of maya onto other people's maya and telling them that it's the truth... How do you think that's going to work out?

Only the Mayans knew the truth about maya!

Why the hate?

Let me count the ways:

1. It's the Daily Mail.
2. Kirilian.
3. Aura.
4. The fact that the pictures look exactly like a technique called "light painting."
5. Tai Chi and other woo-baloney, pseudoscience, and other concepts supported by utter bollocks.

That's just a start, but it covers the bigger items.

The artist, Luis Hernan, is using LEDs that change color depending on signal strength to visualize "Hertzian space" (as he calls it on his site: Digital Ethereal). That is actually interesting, if not very precise. Using his app on a Google Glass would presumably give the wearer a WiFi sense, in the same way that people who have implanted small subdermal magnets report being able to sense magnetic fields.

The stupid woo stuff is from yogi, not Herman or even the Daily Mail (minus the commenters, naturally). Herman's site has a lot of artist-statement-bullshit (using "modality", name-dropping Derrida, etc.), but that's to be expected in the art world (as in, artists are expected to do that pretentious nonsense to appeal to the egos of the rich idiots paying their bills) and can be safely ignored.

It's not the Daily Mail? From their article:

"A student has produced a series of vivid photographs that reveal what the networks that keep us connected to the web look like."

No, he hasn't. Not even close. If I had an LED wand that changed color based on the strength of methane, me waving it around wouldn't reveal the secret world of farts and rotting garbage.

"The images, created by Luis Hernan from Newcastle University, show spectres of Wi-Fi sweeping and swirling around in bright beams."

It shows "spectres" swirling around because that's what he wanted to show. I could take his gizmo and write "PENIS" in the air, and based on the accompanying text, you'd think WiFi spelled out the words of what people were downloading.

I'm surprised a Daily Mail article didn't say how foreign WiFi was putting British WiFi out of work and lowering housing prices, to be honest.

If you had an LED wand that could could create a rough 3d visual representation of odors in space, you would be "revealing" a "secret world" in as much as people can't perceive smells that way, though they do actually exist that way in a 3d space all around us. You'd be showing something that exists that we can't see. It's like those NASA photos of space shot in non-visual wavelengths that expose structures that are there but invisible to us.

At no point does Herman or the Daily Mail mean "spectres" literally. It's the sort of flowery language you can ignore without getting indignant about. The shapes are obviously artistic license, but the colors are roughly representational of actual data about the world around us, and visualize it in a way that we can't normally perceive. Which is interesting.

Like I said, it's hardly precise since moving the lights around manually introduces latency variations and leaves gaps, etc. Perhaps a better tool would be one of those spinning, persistence of vision LED thingies with wifi sensors mounted along the arm. You could move it slowly across a space as it spins and you would get a more solid and consistent visualization.

Except nobody's creating a rough 3D representation of anything beyond what the artist wants to create. It's like saying Michelangelo's "David" shows you how big the original marble quarry was he carved it from and suggests that there are stone people lurking in every chunk.

It's as revealing about WiFi as it is using any other measurable yet invisible (to the human eye) character that can register on an LED. The difference here is that because it's WiFi, the Daily Mail is often sensationalist, and its readers aren't usually very bright, no attempt is made to explain that this is all very pretty yet is otherwise meaningless. This sloppy presentation allows all kinds of BS about how WiFi is a ghost, radiation that kills you, etc. to pop up in their comment section or to impress people who believe in auras or spiritual energy.

You're faulting the artist for having been reprinted in the Daily Mail because its readers are idiots, and apparently for yogi's irrelevant comments. Do you see no value in the original work outside of these unnecessary contexts being forced on it?

And the spatial representation is in the color of the light, as can be seen clearest in the thumb image where signal strength lessens moving away from the phone on the floor, not the shapes he's drawing, which are just artistic license (filling the space with horizontal lines of light would be dull).