Fractal using law of GRAVITY

[AllIsOne]

Hi fractal lovers,

The project :

I made this fractal using a program of simulation of physics : Phun .

This fractal is simply generated using law of gravity!

My wish is to see this fractal in 3D.

Instead to be only a 2D circle of little circles, it could be a sphere of spheres .

I hope to find here someone familiar with blender or maybe a other way of programing it.

How it is made :

I spaced at equal distance many hundred of littles circles.

I made all those circles attract each other, like if they where planets.

I putted a tracer on each of them to see where they passed.

Lunched the simulation and watch them groups together!


Try it yourself :

You can watch my video on YouTube on how I made it, steps by steps and see the fractal growing.
( full screen in HD is better to see details )

" <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/m4iz0rIKMdw&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/m4iz0rIKMdw&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>"

Here you can download Phun.

http://www.phunland.com/wiki/Download

With this link you can try live this fractal in Phun

http://www.algodoo.com/algobox/profile.php?id=2866

Thank you for watching and trying  

[eiffie]

Actually from the outside a 3d version will just look like a sphere of little spheres but from the inside it should have a nice tree look. And you should be able to grow the trees using the inverse law?!?
Lol, just realized the patterns are from floating point errors so the inverse would would create quite a different pattern.
Eeeks! Just realized again that plank's length may add just these types of "errors" and gravity IS fractal. Does this account for the lumpiness of space? The arrow of time?? Probably not but I love how I come to this site to see the pretty pictures but leave with deep questions about the universe.

[jasonquantum1]

If Planck's length is truly the limit of observation (there may be things smaller than the Planck length but they are not observable) then the Planck length may play a huge role in the shape of space time. If you draw a line and label it a Planck length and then require that all other points be exactly one or whole multiples of one Planck length away from each other you will get a lattice (which is a fractal). Here is a link to what space time would look like if it was discrete (made of whole multiples of Planck lengths or any discrete length:)

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/why-e-equals-mc2-where-energy-comes-from-jason-padgett.html

So if space time is grid like (or a lattice) like many think, including Einstein and Hawkings and others, then space time is a fractal. A grid (or cube) making larger and larger cubes, each piece is the same as the whole.

[taurus]

If Planck's length is truly the limit of observation (there may be things smaller than the Planck length but they are not observable)

... then the planck length is the limit of observation, not of spacetime (if any)

Here is a link to what space time would look like if it was discrete (made of whole multiples of Planck lengths or any discrete length

if this image has anything to do with the "look" of spacetime, it defines something like a "planck angle" at 60 degrees. sorry, dismissed.

[Syntopia]

But this only works in two dimensions?

If you want to do the same in 3D, you would need to use regular (equilateral) tetrahedra. It is known that tetrahedrons do not tile space, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedron_packing

[taurus]

If you want to do the same in 3D, you would need to use regular (equilateral) tetrahedra. It is known that tetrahedrons do not tile space, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedron_packing

and what about the four-dimensional spacetime?