|
Post by Devils advocate on Aug 7, 2005 14:06:58 GMT -5
Math is a joke. It will never work to describe the way the universe works, it is an arbitrary demarcation like fractals or curves, it is contexual, not exogenous. Fractals are a way to demarcate and describe certain empirical aspects, they are no less or more natural than curves.
|
|
|
Post by Fusioner on Aug 7, 2005 22:13:46 GMT -5
A fractal equation is at the root of every curve... Either that, or there is no unification of the universe. Curves are fractal illusions. Like a mirage on the desert.
Of course flat earth people never see a rainbow, or a mirage, or a snowfake, iron powder on a magnet, or a blue sky, or a cloud, or a lightning bolt, or an interstellar nebula thru a telescope and realize they are fractal, not curved patterns.
Don't knock mathematics... They predict weather, calculate landings on other planets, even sort out your spam.
|
|
|
Post by Devils advocate on Aug 7, 2005 22:34:23 GMT -5
Equations are arbitrary demarcations devoid of value exogenous to contextual perception ergo they contain no truth and are but theoretical illusory tools that as we utilize them we hinder our ultimate understanding of what we seek to portray. Moreover they cannot be used to unify all that exists, due to the paradox that using them creates.
Knowledge is but an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by Fusioner on Aug 7, 2005 22:45:26 GMT -5
Denial complex... See a professional
|
|
|
Post by Devils advocate on Aug 7, 2005 23:01:20 GMT -5
If we go together (to a professional) maybe we can get a group rate? I am kind of strapped.
|
|
|
Post by Fusioner on Aug 7, 2005 23:05:33 GMT -5
I already sought help ;D Fractal Math Resources Start with Mandelbrot & Richardson en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbroten.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Long_Is_the_Coast_of_Britain%3F_Statistical_Self-Similarity_and_Fractional_Dimensionen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Fry_RichardsonOn Mandelbrot: "He also emphasised the use of fractals as realistic and useful models of many natural phenomena, including the shape of coastlines and river basins; the structure of plants, blood vessels and lungs; the clustering of galaxies; Brownian motion; and stock market prices. Far from being unnatural, Mandelbrot held the view that fractals were, in many ways, more intuitive and natural than the artificially smooth objects of traditional Euclidean geometry. As he says in the Introduction to The Fractal Geometry of Nature:
Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line. The Fractal Geometry of Nature is a mathematics text. If you want a layman's book with diagrams and examples, I would suggest another author. www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716711869/qid=1123526977/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2002030-7238301?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
|
|
|
Post by stupid on Aug 8, 2005 17:27:59 GMT -5
I am familar with fractals, however I want to know where you are going with them and why.
How are they independant of perceptive context?
|
|
|
Post by Fusioner on Aug 8, 2005 19:54:44 GMT -5
How are they independant of perceptive context? Is perception not a valid context? You should almost start a thread on that. There are a lot of people out there who won't agree on what reality or perception are. I think I have stated I am not a mathematican... But I do gather independant raw data. When I see data sets, from working systems and devices... That naturally resolve into fractal patterns... Then I explored basic fractal theory... And I realize they are completely congruent... It is something that should be pondered and explored by others, and so I wish to document the basics. As for the direction I am taking it... I plan on starting practical research into stable fractal geometries in electromagnetic structures. I see new technology. I don't need math for this work... I can see the geometries in nature, all around me... I have sufficient technological skills to bring some to very high energy states for testing. It's a very good question. I could write a book on it, and I have... But my legal advisors have told me repeatedly my advanced work is proprietary information and must be protected... No publish until the patents are secured. I could patent my ideas now and talk about them... But without a working machine and claims... I have a 12 month period in which to develop a system that would satisfy a patent examiner... And while I could do, I would prefer not to have my back on the wall, and buy myself some breathing time to properly plan a research project. That is an Einstein Geometry... It does not work. Fusion Thread: fusioner.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=future&action=display&thread=1122865011
|
|
|
Post by Fusioner on Aug 9, 2005 19:17:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fusioner on Aug 12, 2005 16:03:40 GMT -5
|
|