The Fractal Nature Of Geometry & Benoit B. Mandelbrot

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by common_sense_seeker, Jul 21, 2009.

  1. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Benoit B. Mandelbrot gave us the groundbreaking 1977 book 'The Fractal Geometry Of Nature', the iconic example being the self-replicating pattern of the fern. When considering the fractal universe and the creation event with regard to cosmology, I propose that the clever alternative should be: 'The Fractal Nature Of Geometry'. (Note the subtle difference).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Except that not all geometry involves fractals. The point Mandelbrot is making with his title is that fractals seem to be everywhere in Nature, Nature is fractal while your proposed title implies that geometry is fractal, which isn't true.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    geometry in nature is always fractal though perhaps?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    That still doesn't make your proposed title better. Geometry is a mathematical discipline which is useful to physicists. Some geometry is to do with fractals, most isn't. Even if all geometry in Nature is fractal that doesn't mean all geometry is fractal.
     
  8. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    You simply don't have the mental picture to appreciate the title, that's all. It's a truly wondrous thing to behold: the fractal beauty of creation. Geometry from the human mind could well be fantastic but knowing that all matter exists from a simple fractal geometry that can be simulated and shown via computer graphics would be mesmerising and the mere thought of such is AMAZING.

    Benoit would appreciate what I am talking about, I'm sure...it's just like his way of thinking..
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    That sentiment is well expressed by "The Fractal Geometry of Nature".
    It says something about nature, it's amazing elegance and beauty.

    Your revised title, on the other hand, makes no statement about nature at all. It makes a demonstrably false statement about geometry.

    You simply don't have the mental faculty to understand the language, that's all.
     
  10. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    I'm not disputing his title is profound, it's just that the notion of all existence, including Nature, originating from an initial fractal geometry is also profound. Maybe he had a thought of this as well, I don't know.
     
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    It's nothing to do with a mental picture, it's about grammar. His title is describing nature, 'fractal' is used as an adjective to describe nature. Your proposed title is describing geometry, 'fractal' is an adjective describing geometry.

    His title is saying that the geometry of nature is fractal, nature seems to possess a lot of fractal systems. You're saying the nature of geometry is fractal, that all geometry involves fractals, which is not true.

    You say it as if I've been saying it doesn't exist or that I don't see it. I'm familiar with the various interesting geometric systems which seem to arise in nature a lot, I never said otherwise. Infact, you saying 'the fractal beauty of creation' is attributing the property of being fractal to nature, which is not what your proposed title says, it's what his title says!

    Firstly, not all of nature is fractal, the orbits of planets are not, the geometry of space is not. Other geometries are important to people describing the real world, even when they aren't fractal. If you want to know the shortest path a plane should fly between two cities you use spherical geometry. If you want to calculate special relativity dynamics you use Minkowski space-time and its pseudo-Riemannian geometry. Not all of nature is fractal and neither is all of geometry fractal.

    Yeah, keep kidding yourself. You've already displayed, in many threads, your tendency to jump to massively dubious conclusions with absolutely no rhyme or reason for your assumptions. Have you ever studied fractals? Clearly you've never studied geometry or else you'd not be making the claims you are in this thread.

    Your posts make me think you chose your forum pseudonym to be ironic.
     
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    That idea is not expressed by your alternative title. "Geometry" does not imply "all existence."
    "Nature", on the other hand, does imply all existence. Mandelbrot's title expresses your thought better than your alternative.
     
  13. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    The picture I have is the creation of matter from nothing. From a void, a spinning helical structure appears in one spatial direction, and a corrsponding spinning helical structure appears in the opposite direction. This way momentum of the system is conserved. The helical structure can then begin to form a larger helical structure in a fractal like fashion. Is this mental picture so ludicrous??
     
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
  15. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Or you are without the capacity of lateral thinking perhaps? A little too sure of yourself? Only believe what you have been taught?
     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Firstly, you cannot have a helical structure which is 'in one spatial direction' as a helix is a 3 dimensional object. Secondly, there's no reason to think your random guess is right. Thirdly, there's nothing formal to it so it's completely undevelopable. Fourthly, you've demonstrated on many occasions to having a preference for coming up with entirely outlandish explainations, such as a near Earth object causing the ice ages or expansion being gravity curving around the universe. If your postulations were tempered by a bit of knowledge in the relevant areas I'd be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. But they aren't.
     
  17. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    You're deliberately pretending not to understand the simple concept of a spinning helical structure forming in a 3D space (with x,y and z axes). I don't appreciate you misquoting my concepts either. An ultra-close near miss Earth object would result in a flexure of the lithosphere and NOT cause an ice age.
     
  18. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I remember years ago being fascinated by Mandelbrot shapes.
    It was about the time standard computers became able to generate them.
    I used to wait bloody hours for it to produce anything.

    Have there been an developments since more powerful computers have come into being, or not?
    Alphanumeric mentions 3D shapes. That would be a natural progression.
    I've found this. Is it 3D, or just a 2D fractal given a bit of depth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    When you think about it, a nuclear explosion is a 3D fractal.
    Any prettier 3D examples?

    Any example of 3D Fractals in nature?
    (Apart from the nearly 2D ones such as ferns.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2009
  19. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Agreed.
     
  20. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I couldn't suggest an example in the Natural world in regards to Flora and Fauna however I'm pretty sure that fractals have progress beyond just 3 Dimensions. I would say that I'm pretty sure that people have played with 5th Dimensional ones, however this thread could take a turn for the worse through discussion over what the 5th Dimension is...
     
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I know precisely what a helix is and I know precisely how its described in three dimensions. My field of research is six dimensional twisted tori. Think a helix but much more complex.

    My point is that you offer zero reason to think your made up claims have anything valid to them. Why a helix? Why not a trefoil knot? Or a torus? Or a mobius strip? Why did you pick that shape?

    Oh I'm sorry, rather than quoting the actual nutty idea you had, I quoted an entirely different nutty idea you didn't have. My point, that your ideas are nutty and baseless, remains.
     
  22. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2009
  23. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Why is a post about fractals in pseudo science, anyway?
     

Share This Page