What qualifies as science?

[river]

According to you at least. Then again, you've already (and multiply) shown yourself to be unreliable with regard to facts.

not facts , just sources to the facts .

No. Technology is essentially applied science.

anyway what qualifies as science is everything .
science is about knowledge of the Natural world . and Tech.

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 .

 

[Write4U]

Never heard of this before . ( people it is important to explain an acronym , please )
CDT , is defined as ; Causal dynamical triangulation , This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

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

The Loops '05 conference, hosted by many loop quantum gravity theorists, included several presentations which discussed CDT in great depth, and revealed it to be a pivotal insight for theorists. It has sparked considerable interest as it appears to have a good semi-classical description. At large scales, it re-creates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but it shows spacetime to be 2-d near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work. A brief article appeared in the February 2007 issue of Scientific American, which gives an overview of the theory, explained why some physicists are excited about it, and put it in historical perspective. The same publication gives CDT, and its primary authors, a feature article in its July 2008 issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

[river]

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

thanks for your definition CDT and the site .

 

[NotEinstein]

These points are just the begining.

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.

People , brilliant people have been pointing out the flaws of BB for 20-30yrs .

And you have yet to name one.

Just google , you will find many more problems with BB.

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

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/01/the-big-bang-was-a-mirage-perimeter-institute-for-theoretical-physics-2015-most-popular.html

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.​

 

[NotEinstein]

Thank you much for that excellent link and your effort to give my hopelessly inadequate presentation a serious look.. It now holds a special place in my library.

I am heartened to see that my intuitive layman's impression was correct in the sense that CDT might be able to offer an important contribution to our understanding of a fundamental aspect of our universe.

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

p.s. I am sure you will have noticed the fractal aspect to this hypothesis as well.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

In pure mathematical terms you are correct.

In mathematics a fractal is an abstract object used to describe and simulate naturally occurring objects. Artificially created fractals commonly exhibit similar patterns at increasingly small scales.
It is also known as expanding symmetry or evolving symmetry. If the replication is exactly the same at every scale, it is called a self-similar pattern. An example of this is the Menger sponge.

In mathematics, the Menger sponge (also known as the Menger universal curve) is a fractal curve. It is a three-dimensional generalization of the Cantor set and Sierpinski carpet, though it is slightly different from a Sierpinski sponge. It was first described by Karl Menger in 1926, in his studies of the concept of topological dimension

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.

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

Fractals can also be nearly the same at different levels. This latter pattern is illustrated in small magnifications of the Mandelbrot set. Fractals also include the idea of a detailed pattern that repeats itself.

But it was Mandelbrot himself who recognized that fractal structures can also be found at the macroscopic scale in nature.

The term "fractal" was first used by mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot in 1975. Mandelbrot based it on the Latin frāctus meaning "broken" or "fractured", and used it to extend the concept of theoretical fractional dimensions to geometric patterns in nature.

Still later, Mandelbrot settled on this use of the language: "...to use fractal without a pedantic definition, to use fractal dimension as a generic term applicable to all the variants."

Natural phenomena with fractal features
Further information: Patterns in nature
Approximate fractals found in nature display self-similarity over extended, but finite, scale ranges. The connection between fractals and leaves, for instance, is currently being used to determine how much carbon is contained in trees. Phenomena known to have fractal features include:

• River networks
• Fault lines
• Mountain ranges
• Craters
• Lightning bolts
• Coastlines
• Mountain goat horns
• Trees
• Algae
• Geometrical optics[52]
• Animal coloration patterns
• Romanesco broccoli
• Pineapple
• Heart rates[22]
• Heart sounds[23]
• Earthquakes[30][53]
• Snowflakes[54]
• Psychological subjective perception[55]
• Crystals[56]
• Blood vessels and pulmonary vessels[47]
• Ocean waves[57]
• DNA
• Soil pores[58]
• Rings of Saturn[59][60]
• Proteins[61]
• Surfaces in turbulent flows

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal#fractals_in_nature

Hungarian biologist Aristid Lindenmayer and French American mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot showed how the mathematics of fractals could create plant growth patterns.
Mathematics, physics and chemistry can explain patterns in nature at different levels.
Patterns in living things are explained by the biological processes of natural selection and sexual selection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

 

[NotEinstein]

In pure mathematical terms you are correct.

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

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.

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/Fractal#fractals_in_nature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

Keyword: features. They are not fractals, but fractal-like.

 

[Michael 345]

Ask him about the Alien atomic war on Mars!! Fair dinkum!

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

 

[Write4U]

And since fractals are purely mathematical things, that's all that matters.
Keyword: features. They are not fractals, but fractal-like.

I don't know what you are getting at.

The term "fractal" was first used by mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot in 1975. Mandelbrot based it on the Latin frāctus meaning "broken" or "fractured", and used it to extend the concept of theoretical fractional dimensions to geometric patterns in nature.
Still later, Mandelbrot settled on this use of the language: "...to use fractal without a pedantic definition, to use fractal dimension as a generic term applicable to all the variants."

Are you denying the inventor of the word to define it?

Can you explain how "fractal" should be defined, to meet your standards?

 

[NotEinstein]

I don't know what you are getting at.

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.

Are you denying the inventor of the word to define it?

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.

Can you explain how "fractal" should be defined, to meet your standards?

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!

 

[iceaura]

Are you denying the inventor of the word to define it?

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.

 

[Write4U]

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!

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.

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).

 

[NotEinstein]

It does to me also if used only as holding true as theoretically infinite dimensional set, such as the Menger sponge, where infinite iterations stop when the actual size of the sponge is attained.

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).

IOW the fractality lies within the fixed geometry.

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

And reality imposes limits on size such as the Menger sponge.

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.

Why should fractals not exist within that size ?

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.)

They don't have to be infinite as long as they are fractal within the limited dimensions of the object.

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..."

Note , because the very concept of infinity poses a functional limitation, 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.

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.

The Koch snowflake also is theoretically infinite as a surface, but that does not mean that 4 iterations do not make a Koch snowflake, is just coarser in form (as demonstrated 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.

 

[Write4U]

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."

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.

Wrong. It approximates the Koch snowflake, but with only four iteration, it isn't one.

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"

 

[NotEinstein]

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.

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

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 am not disputing that.

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"

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.)

 

[Write4U]

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

I doubt you can squeeze an infinite number of fractals in a 4" x 4" cube., regardless of how small the fractals are.

(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.)

I'll take trivially true over false....

 

[NotEinstein]

I doubt you can squeeze an infinite number of fractals in a 4" x 4" cube., regardless of how small the fractals are.

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.

I'll take trivially true over false....

(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.)

 

[iceaura]

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."

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.

The Koch snowflake also is theoretically infinite as a surface,

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 doubt you can squeeze an infinite number of fractals in a 4" x 4" cube., regardless of how small the fractals are.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

Yet;

Apparently one can subdivide any cube into an infinite number of Menger sponges.

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;

Natural phenomena with fractal features
Further information: Patterns in nature
Approximate fractals found in nature display self-similarity over extended, but finite, scale ranges.

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

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest

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.