Someone in a shop persuaded me I was wrong about focal length and needed to re-think it. I think it would be longer, rather than shorter, which somebody else suggested might be being implied by the photo of the sculpture of the microscope. What isn't visible on the photo is the eyepiece, or something that resembles it, visible at about 45 degrees at the top rather than the bottom of the microscope - ie, it looks like the mirror. And they might be saying that the way it is lit, from below, and the level of lighting in the cylinder, means that there is likely to be an obstruction in the way of an opaque object. Or that if it is lit from behind one is seeing the wrong side of any screen if the image is projected rather than viewed directly.
Also, since reading Orwell's, Politics of the English language, I feel more justified in thinking that words are clues to what is going on. And if you re-arrange 'Rutgers' you get 'surgery' if you have a 'y' 'not' a 't'. And if you add 'i', you get 'tiny', which you might end up with if you re-arranged any word, although there might be some point to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment