The Fractal Nature Of Geometry & Benoit B. Mandelbrot

No, it was an honest mistake because I don't click the quote button multiple times, I copy and paste the quote tags and I forgot to change the name of the person for the last bit. No malice intended and it's obvious to anyone reading the thread who I was actually quoting, but obviously you're trying to play the persecuted card and imply I've the habit of lying, which is itself a lie. Both you and CSS have claimed there's good methodology to your claims or lines of thought, yet neither of you can ever justify that and if people wish to see for themselves exchanges between you and I on your 'work' they can see the threads, I don't have anything to hide, I've backed up my criticism of you and all the people who have a decent science education here think the same of your work.

But maybe we're all in a massive conspiracy to keep people like you and CSS down.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm, OK dude.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do cranks always seem to think that criticism of their illogic is some kind of personal attack?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

quantum_wave;

Ignoring the others for the moment, let's go back to discussing the thread. Do you understand the picture I'm trying to paint with this explanation:

Does this begin to make any sense to you?

 

This is a pseudoscience forum for one thing which should allow for discussions exactly like yours. That is especially true now that D H has set standards for his forums and is running a tight ship. Pseudoscience should be the new place for alternative ideas, against the mainstream discussions, and not a dumping ground for ideas that have no connection to science; the Cesspool or maybe Free Thoughts are for those threads.

If I am right about that, then the next thing is the treatment of people wishing to discuss and learn; it is atrocious. Under the guise of teaching, the poster who questions the critic is often simply “told they are wrong”. Once they have been "told" by one of the brains, then the other brains show up to pour on the heat. A seeker is told to get an education, put in the rigor, learn the science and by the way it is implied that you are too stupid or lazy to do that. I think that discourages people from seeking out understanding and in the case of young people it can do more harm to their initiative than it does to encourage their initiative.

I believe that someone who overcomes the initial mode of lurking on these threads to finally break through with questions that show they are beginning to think about science should be encouraged. Encouragement to me is to acknowledge the idea, give credit for the thinking and the effort to get their thoughts exposed to the community, and then address the idea from the standpoint of what the critic already knows and had to learn at some point too, talking the person through some of the science. I am certain that approach is better than the shock and awe approach. But just saying that will stoke the fire.

As for your specific idea I have no reason to believe that there isn’t something to it. But it would need to be explored in more detail, step by step, for me to understand where you are coming from and this particular topic is not one that I am familiar enough with to qualify me as the best facilitator.

 

No mate. You are delusional. Pray they develop gene therapy that can raise your IQ to the level of a moron. Yes, that's an ad hominem. If you had shown any ability to understand what you were being told, or to have sensible thoughts off your own bat, then I would attempt to talk with you. But it isn't worth it. What you have revealed is that your own thinking is fractal: at any scale it is pure baloney.

 

This is the first time you have jumped in and supported my point. You just proved that some people should be in restraints.

 

Except for the slight problem of it being impossible to form a fractal from helices.
A fractal is self-similar at all scales, if your smallest unit is a helix (which is not self-similar at all scales) you're buggered from the start.

 

So we have a difference of opinion and I'm not sure which is true. Can anyone elaborate on how a the complex structure that CCS mentions might be called a helix. How about it CCS?

And is it true that a fractal can't be repeating helices?

I have a question for CCS. Does that spinning helix tie in to your thread on the Genius of Lemaitre and the topology you are suggesting?

 

Might it not help you to know what the definition of a fractal is?

Might it not help you to know what the definition of a fractal is?

A helix is not a fractal. It is describably using simple Riemannian geometry. It's not self similar. It's Hausdorff dimension is trivial. It's everywhere differentiable. None of those are hard and fast definitions but any given fractal has at least one such property usually.

I'm sure he can come up with some tenious link, after all, the spinning helix is simply something he made up without justification or reason.

 

Oh gosh, do you suppose that anyone doesn't know what a fractal is?

Thanks for the explanation.

Do you know how to bring people into a discussion as opposed to driving them away from discussions? (Rhetorical).

 

Sometimes people should not be involved in the conversation. I wouldn't ask my car mechanic to comment on my cholesterol for example.

 

Elitist snobbery.

 

Making a passing comment about cholesterol is much different then a forum designated purely for discussion.

But as far as resolution goes, we have found no upper or lower bound yet to reality just as you would expect in a fractal. You look in the deepest part of the sky with a good enough telescope and you will still see stars. Any illusion of darkness is just our limited techniques at play. The same goes for the lower bound, we are still looking for something truly tangible. Planck length is theoretical lower limit, but we will see.

 

You get it :worship:

 

Well given the posts you and CSS have made, it would seem you don't. Hence my pseudo-rhetorical question about why it might be important to know what one is before you make claims the universe involves one of some kind.

 

Basic common sense. If I want to discuss something I talk to someone who I know understands the topic. Are you genuinely trying to tell me that if you wanted to talk about how monoamine neurotransmitters affect your mood you would be happy to glean knowledge from a carpenter, or a professor of mathematics? Both people are highly skilled at what they do but I'll be willing to wager know very little about serotonin.

If you were to ask said people about said subject you'd probably find they either directed you to an appropriate person (a doctor) or, if they had your world view, they would probably make something up to try and look smart. The point is your question would not be answered correctly.

It's not elitist to go to ask questions of appropriate people, and you are demonstrating that you are nothing more than a filthy liar by suggesting it is.

 

You don't get it. All you're doing is making up rubbish. Why don't you try an alternative career as a children's author. Being imaginative is something to be lauded in that profession. In physics and maths, it's not.

 

My smallest scale of structure is not the helix. It is a single spinning 'thread'. The analogy I use is to imagine a piece of cotton held between thumb and forefinger and allowed to hang down with gravity. Now roll the thread between your fingers and notice how the thread will begin to create a helical shape whilst rotating. If the thread is allowed to gradually grow in length, then the helical shape will continue to grow. Going back to the Creation process, the next intuitive step is to imagine that this helical shaped thread will act as the initial single straight thread, and begin to form a helix shape itself. This is a self-replicating pattern of the creation of structure and spin.

Thanks for kind words of encouragement and support quantum_wave, much appreciated. There is an advanced idea I have based on the gravity particles produced from this intial build-up of matter before the big bang wrapping around the 4D topology to become a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy. You think that vacuum energy is a good explanation of the cosmological expansion, but perhaps it is a combination of this and my idea for example?

 

In other words still not a fractal.
What causes the "spin"?
What causes it to become helical?

Why?
You are aware that the thread becomes "helical" because gravity is "trying" to keep it hanging straight down, and that it's the material properties that define how tightly it will wind it a helix?

In other words you need something else (actually TWO something elses):
something to make it spin and something to "prevent" it, thus making it form a helix.

PS: you didn't answer this one from your "Is Einstein's Space-Time A 'Get Out Of A Mechanism Free Card'?" thread.

Originally Posted by common_sense_seeker
I should have said the simplest and most common sense structure then. The helix IS the particle. It's spin creates the wave part of it's particle/wave duality.

Dywyddyr: Presumably (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you're taking the "side view" of the helix as showing the wave nature - i.e. the wave length is the pitch?