The Fractal Nature Of Geometry & Benoit B. Mandelbrot

The point to think of is the formation of a helix from a simple spinning thread structure. The combination of extending length and it's spin would result in a brand new, more complex structure; the helix. This spinning helix could now act as the initial straight thread structure and begin to form a helix itself, hence a self-replicating fractal-like structure of immense size could be created. (this has the makings of creation in one simple go, all we need now is radiation (gravity) in the form of the same structure)

Great find. I like the 3D ones.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except that it is utterly unjustified, offers no explainations to anything, doesn't allow anything to be described and displays how clueless you are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or innovative.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why a helix? Why not a torus? Or a tetrahedron? Or a tesserate? Or a Klein bottle? Why 3 dimensions and not more? A helix isn't fractal, why not a fractal? Why not a chiral fractal?

Simply throwing out random ideas is not 'innovative'. Innovative is to look at a problem and some up with a practical methodology which hasn't been considered before to solve it.

For instance, how about human travel to the Moon. von Braun had an idea to use multistage liquid fuelled rockets. That's innovative. The random suggestion of "Let's build a really really big ladder" is not innovative, it's random and stupid and does nothing to actually address the issue at hand with any real methodology. Just like you randomly hypothesising things about explainatiosn for gravity, expansion and the big bang. Imagination is great but imagination without the tempering of rationality is useless.

 

It shows that I'm thinking about how structure formed without using the framework presented by Einstein i.e. without his rubber sheet analogy of space-time to explain gravity. I've explained previously how a radiating particle in a spinning helix structure can readily produce a force of attraction, analogous to a wood screw.

See my response in post#21 about why it's a helix-like shape. I'm just considering a case where space is created independently and just before that of matter & structure. The methodology I've used is to assume that Newton and Einstein have made a mistake. It has paid dividends by giving me a whole new vision of creation without being bogged down with a hundred years of 'groupthink'. It isn't just me with this new way of thinking: Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang:

My model gives an excellent account of why the initial entropy of the universe was so low.

P.S Alpha Numeric; Have you read 'Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Fate of the Cosmos' (Iain Nicholson, 2007)? It's recommended reading by Luminet in his interesting book. Iain Nicholson was a very influencial lecturer of mine and an important figure at the observatory. Perhaps you could judge the level of my education from this, since it seems to be troubling you to some degree.

 

The silence is deafening..

 

Well good for you. To be honest I hadn't reread this thread since my last post so I've only just seen your reply to it. I spent the entirety of yesterday afternoon working and I sleep 12 hours a day. I reply to posts like yours when I can be bothered, because I view it as entertainment.

 

You've given an arm wavey, utterly unjustified in any sound way, explaination for it. Which science wouldn't deem as an explaination at all.

This is the typical crank excuse for why you know nothing. Cranks always like to think they are 'free' of being led down the wrong path by all physicists in history. Isn't it odd how there isn't a single physicist in the last 100+ years whose managed to contribute to physics in a decent way while being utterly ignorant of the physicists which have come before. It would seem the "I'll keep myself ignorant" methodology is an abject failure.

So what exactly are these 'dividends' you speak of? You have accomplished nothing?

Except your model can't actually model anything. Give me one phenomenon your model can actually model and demonstrate that explicitly.

I judge your level of knowledge by your posts, which are pitiful. And no, I haven't read that book. But I have read numerous books on quantitative things in general relativity, I can actually model such things as dark energy and I've a small amount of experience looking at explicit models put forth to describe dark matter, ie the MSSM.

I find it hard to believe you've studied science when you seem to have no idea how it works.

 

You don't have a model.

 

Good question.

 

lol. You're so amusing.

If you're talking about me, then I'd say I do have a model, it's just that it's intuitive. I'm trying to find someone open-minded enough to appreciate where I'm coming from that's all, so that the idea can be taken further.

It's because he's scared or simply pig-ignorant. He's so full of himself it would be impossible for him to consider anything radically different from the path he's on.

 

At least people laugh with me, rather than at me.

But you couldn't answer my challenge that you provide me with a single phenomenon you can actually model.

Your method of finding 'models' is the same as Quantum_wave's and QWC. You learn of a phenomenon and then you give a random explaination, which you find appealing, for it. Everything is always 'explained' afterwards. Never any "I have a model which explains X and predicts Y. Let's go test it!", always "Oh, perhaps you could explain X by...." and then you make something arm wavey up.

If you have a model then it should be able to model something. So what is that something?:shrug:

Or perhaps it's because you're incapable of holding an informed discussion on fractals and so you have to pepper your posts with (as Wikipedia would call it) your own 'original research', aka your uninformed opinions on topics you know nothing about. Hence its in pseudo.

 

Why don't you take your personal frustrations out on something else? Why do this as well, if your 'true' scientific work is so taxing? Do you do any physical exercise for example? All work and no play..

 

This whole thread has become a beautiful circular argument which smacks of a literary mandelbrot and confirms common-sense-seeker's original post.
/nice

 

Nicely put. I'll take that as a compliment..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My personal frustrations, real or not, are nothing to do with how I interact with you.]

Like you say, all work and no play, and you're part of my entertainment. And I do admit I don't do enough exercise but I am not terribly concerned about it, I'm fairly healthy.

Feel free to answer my criticisms, rather than try to avoid them, though.

 

I think you are frustrated and it has everything to do with how you react on the threads.

 

Agreed.

What are your opinions on Spud Emperor's post:

Or is anyone who disagrees with your superior attitude also a moron?

 

Actually, compared to this time last year I'm doing pretty well. This time last year I was frustrated with my work as my supervisor was 5 months into what would be a 7 month maternity leave, my research had stalled as a result and I felt I wasn't being given enough support from my department. Now I've got work to my name, I've got two papers in the pipeline, one entirely my own work and the second is in collaboration but the central result is something I did which my new supervisor completely didn't expect and I'm beginning to write up my thesis. Things are going pretty well. If you think I'm not nice to you lot because I'm frustrated, you're wrong. I just don't think very much of either of you, particularly because CSS claims to have done a science based degree, which makes his ignorance all the more galling.

Is there some reason you're avoiding answering my criticisms? Do you have any justification for your claims?

 

So it is a personal dislike that drives your obnoxious attitude. Enough said on this thread, OK.

I didn't say that. You have changed the quote function to make it look like I said something I didn't. Did you do that because I always insist you use the quote function because you have a habit of saying that people say things that they didn't say? (Rhetorical)