|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Fractal Cosmology" entry in Wikipedia
Recently an entry on the subject of "Fractal Cosmology" was added to
Wikipedia. Better late than never. You might want to take a look since it may be an important paradigm for the 21st century. In a related development, Pietronero (paper in preparation, personal communication) has alerted me to the fact that the latest SDSS data release provides compelling evidence for fractal clustering to the limits of the survey, and continuing inconsistency with the assumption of cosmological homogeneity. These are interesting times for cosmology. Knecht www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Fractal Cosmology" entry in Wikipedia
" schreef in bericht
... Recently an entry on the subject of "Fractal Cosmology" was added to Wikipedia. Better late than never. Is this really such a breakthrough ? At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology we read: "In a wide variety of places, in fact almost anywhere they look in the universe, people studying the heavens are finding fractals or fractal-like structures." Beside that text there is a picture titled "A galaxy of galaxies" which resembles our Milky Way galaxy but clearly which is not. IMO you can not describe the Universe or any Galaxy by a MandelBrot Set. So what is the point ? You might want to take a look since it may be an important paradigm for the 21st century. Snip At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology there is no link to fractal cosmology. I do not think there should. Knecht www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Nicolaas Vroom http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Fractal Cosmology" entry in Wikipedia
On May 19, 10:22 am, "Nicolaas Vroom"
wrote: Beside that text there is a picture titled "A galaxy of galaxies" which resembles our Milky Way galaxy but clearly which is not. The graphic you mention shows one of the beautiful and thought-provoking images from deep within the M-set. It is *not* meant to directly represent any actual physical object found in nature. The author of the Wikipedia addition probably chose it for aesthetic reasons and for a hint of the diversity, complexity and order that can be created by recursively iterating a very simple algorithm. IMO you can not describe the Universe or any Galaxy by a Mandelbrot Set. So what is the point ? There are many different fractal sets, or nonlinear dynamical system equations, that generate fractals, probably an infinite number of them. Why should we fixate on the M-set? True, it is one of the most remarkable sets yet found and put into visual form, but it is hardly all there is to the general areas of fractals. Last Friday I came across an NLDS equation that, when iterated, generates a set that looks virtually indistinguishable from a photo of a sand dollar - an amazing likeness with unique morphological matches! Study Peitgen's Chaos and Fractals and you may attain a better understanding of the potential of fractal geometry and fractal modeling. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology there is no link to fractal cosmology. I do not think there should. Science allows people to think freely and encourages them not to be bullied by peer pressure or authority. You are free to reject the fractal paradigm, but I would hope you do so from a position of knowledge, rather than a position of a lack of knowledge. In the latter case, one is often inclined to make decisions based on emotional thought rather than rational thought. Knecht www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw [Mod. note: as this thread seems to have drifted even further away from astrophysics, perhaps it should terminate or move away from the newsgroup at this point. -- mjh] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
15 answers to nonsense being spread by "creation science,""intelligent design," and "Expelled" | Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | April 29th 08 01:29 PM |
"Constant failure"; "The greatest equations ever"; "The Coming Revolutions in Particle Physics" | fishfry | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 13th 08 02:38 AM |
Why Wikipedia is *NOT* reliable (Wuz: ....."I looked at it and it was a B-29") | OM[_6_] | Policy | 3 | August 11th 07 02:37 PM |
Interesting factoid on Wikipedia's entry for "Silly Putty" | OM | History | 3 | January 2nd 06 04:56 PM |
"Space Race" on Wikipedia | Stuf4 | History | 22 | December 1st 05 06:04 AM |