What qualifies as science?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Jozen-Bo, Apr 25, 2017.

  1. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,411
    not facts , just sources to the facts .


    while I agree about your point about Tech. as applied science .

    for myself , this is the important point about our ancient history past .

    while they had the mind/brain development , spiritual development , they didn't have the tech. to go along with it .

    for example , lets for argument sake say the Atlantis did exist and that is was wiped out because of a Volcano and Earth Quake .

    what they didn't have was the Tech. to predict such an event . obviously . for if they had ,they would have been better prepared , or better , moved to another location .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,766
    I did provide the link to Wiki in a previous post, which defines CDT as the acronym for Causal dynamical triangulation. I'll post the link again below.

    As to my mention of the fractal aspect contained in the hypothesis here is another quote from the Wiki article
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,411
    thanks for your definition CDT and the site .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    372
    As I've pointed out, none of these point are any beginning to criticism. Many are wrong, and some are not flaws, but merely unresolved issues.

    And you have yet to name one.

    Can I interpret this as you being unable to present even a single link with this criticism by brilliant people?


    That's not criticism of BB theory. They actually confirm the vast majority of it! Quote: While the recent Planck results “prove that inflation is correct”, ...
    So if everything from inflation onwards is correct, you've already got 95% of BB theory right there.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  8. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    372
    Note that I have never denied that. All I've been saying is that it currently does not.

    Keyword in that sentence: aspect. Sure, fractal aspect, fractal-like. CDT might even have actual fractals! Still, a snowflake isn't one, and neither is a landscape.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,766
    In pure mathematical terms you are correct.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The second iteration gives a level-2 sponge (Image 2 - third from left), the third iteration gives a level-3 sponge (Image 2 - 4th from left), and so on. The Menger sponge itself is the limit of this process after an infinite number of iterations.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    True view of the cross-section of a level-4 Menger sponge through its centroid and perpendicular to a space diagonal. In this interactive SVG, the cross-sections are true-view and to scale.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menger_sponge
    But it was Mandelbrot himself who recognized that fractal structures can also be found at the macroscopic scale in nature.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature
     
  10. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    372
    And since fractals are purely mathematical things, that's all that matters.

    Keyword: features. They are not fractals, but fractal-like.
     
  11. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,483
    Awww come on

    Mars didn't get that way because the Martians used hair spray and destroyed their ozone layer

    It could only have been a long lasting atomic war. And evidence is now coming to light the same war caused Earth to loose our dinosaurs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,766
    I don't know what you are getting at.
    Are you denying the inventor of the word to define it?


    Can you explain how "fractal" should be defined, to meet your standards?
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  13. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    372
    Terms like "fractal features" and "fractals aspects" are often used to denote things that share some features with fractals, but aren't actually fractals. Shrubbery is tree-like: woody stems, leaves. But they aren't actually trees.

    Wow, massive argument from authority here. Also, definitions of words can change, so what the inventor said years ago doesn't necessarily give the definition of the word as it is used today.

    My standards? Please don't involve me in an argument from authority.

    Let's see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
    "The general consensus is that theoretical fractals are infinitely self-similar, iterated, and detailed mathematical constructs having fractal dimensions."
    Yep, that sounds pretty good to me!
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,271
    But he didn't define it.

    There are no fractals in nature, for the same reason there are no circles, parabolas, or surfaces of rotation.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,766
    It does to me also if used only as holding true as a theoretically infinite dimensional set. Seems that you are now talking metaphysically, surprise.

    Menger fractal function stops when the actual size of the sponge is attained. IOW the fractality lies within the fixed geometry, any further fractality would lie outside of the physical form and do indeed theoretically extend into infinity. That where physics changes to metaphysics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And reality imposes limits on size such as in that long list of fractal objects. Why should fractals not exist within in something less than infinite? They don't have to be infinite as long as they are fractal within the limited dimensions of the object.

    Note , because the very metaphysical concept of infinity poses practical functional limitations, Mandelbrot expanded the definition ."to use fractal without a pedantic definition, but to use fractal dimension as a generic term applicable to all the variants." , which would include fractal forms within defined geometrics objects, such as can be found in nature.

    I think the examples provided clearly demonstrate fractal properties, which are finite by physical limitations of the object.

    The Koch snowflake also is theoretically infinite as a surface, but that does not mean that 4 iterations do not make a Koch fractal , it is just coarser (grainier?) in form (as demonstrated earlier).
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  16. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    372
    Please learn what the Menger sponge is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menger_sponge "The Menger sponge itself is the limit of this process after an infinite number of iterations."

    You can't stop the iterating and still have a Menger sponge, by definition (of both fractals and the Menger sponge).

    I don't know what that means. Could you rephrase that?

    Reality does no such thing, because a Menger sponge is abstract. But even then: a Menger sponge has finite size (volume). So what? The infinite iterations only need to go to smaller scales, not necessarily larger one.

    I'm not aware of anybody claiming that. (Unless you mean exist in reality, as fractals made of matter can't exist in reality. Atomic theory and such.)

    Are you referring to the "limited range of scales"? For large scales, sure. For smaller scales: no. Look at the definition of the word I posted earlier: "...infinitely self-similar, iterated..."

    Yes, Mandelbrot said that, but that's not how the term is used nowadays. That's not how it is commonly defined. See my Wikipedia link earlier.

    Wrong. It approximates the Koch snowflake, but with only four iteration, it isn't one. Just like with only four iterations, you don't have a Menger sponge.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,766
    True but it doesn't get bigger in size. A 4 " cube will yield a 4" cubic Menger sponge, regardless of how many iterations it can hold inside.

    Now CDT proposes that the spacetime may actually unfold to infinite size, Which makes the fractal function such a good candidate. for that hypothesis.

    I disagree. IMO , a Koch snowflake is a Koch snowflake without needing and infinite surface area. I distinctly remember the phrase "The first four iterations of the Koch snowflake"
     
  18. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    372
    Then what were you referring to with the word "size" when you said: "when the actual size of the sponge is attained."?

    I am not disputing that.

    And you would be wrong. A Koch snowflake is a fractal. "The first four iterations of the Koch snowflake" does not yield a fractal. It is sloppy language at best.

    (Also, you might want to rephrase your statement "a Koch snowflake is a Koch snowflake without needing and infinite surface area". You just said: "A is A even if not condition B", which is trivially true.)
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,766
    I doubt you can squeeze an infinite number of fractals in a 4" x 4" cube., regardless of how small the fractals are.
    I'll take trivially true over false....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    372
    Why are you all of a sudden talking about putting multiple fractals in a limited volume, let alone an infinite number of fractals? I was talking about a single one.

    (Sure, but your statement as it stands doesn't mean anything, just so you know. You probably meant something else, and that could be wrong. You are choosing ignorance and meaninglessness over knowledge and clarity.)
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,271
    After the first four iterations of the algorithm that produces a Koch snowflake, you do not have an object with a fractal dimension. You have a closed curve of finite length.
    What does that mean? The Koch snowflake exists, theoretically, within a finite area. The curve is infinitely long, but the space it encloses has a finite area and the dimension it "occupies" is less than 2.

    And it does not exist in nature - for the same reason that circles and parabolas do not exist in nature.
    I bet you can. I bet, for example, that one can define an infinite number of separate Koch snowflakes in any cube.

    More interestingly, we know by the property of self-similarity that any suitable cube subdivision of a Menger sponge - one of the 20 filled subcubes of each iteration of the algorithm, say, no matter how small - contains a complete Menger sponge itself. Apparently one can subdivide any cube into an infinite number of Menger sponges.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,766
    Yet;
    Really? And at what point does the space a 3D cube encloses attain a dimension of less than 2? Would that be when it ceases to be a cube and reverts to a Sierpinski triangle?

    And it appears you missed this;
    Must be an error in that scientifically observed and confirmed statement, somewhere, no?

    If you can reconcile these apparently conflicting statements, please help me out in understanding
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,766
    This may be of interest

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    A Sierpinski Triangle is outlined by a fractal tree with three branches forming an angle of 60° between each other. If the angle is reduced, the triangle can be continuously transformed into a tree looking fractal.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpinski_triangle

    Where have I seen this? Oh, in my back yard.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017

Share This Page