Fractal nature of time

[stereoman]

   I was sure that fractals were discovered by Mandelbrot until I learned a bit more, the fact is that fractals are well known long time ago.
 I had 10-12 years when I did a lot of drawings around the fractal tree below, I was fascinated by the way things fell at place following so simple rules, later I learned to do the same with more tridimensional shapes, ie. truncated cones, forming branches and sub branches.
   If 10-12 years old boy could perceive such relationships, what can have done full civilizations based in Geometric knowledge such as Babylon, Egypt, etc, I find it logical that they kenw and use fractals in their lives.


fractaltree por LLeonet, en Flickr

[stereoman]

Let me write it before it eludes me.
 Take a big cycle, a year for instance, this can be considered as a expansion-contraction process, right? half of the year things expand and contract the other half.
  We can see the same thing if we consider a month, the moon increases and decreases in this time.
  And if we take a day, there´s the same scheme, it expands until half-day and contracts the other half.
  But there are also other expansion-contraction cycles, mainly the hearth motion, and the breathing motion, these are fractal derivatives, we are talking about a fractal process extended from smaller living things to galaxies.
  Also think about breathing as a natural time measure, and you will face a totally different idea of the cosmos we live in.
  

[stereoman]

   Suppose you are an alien that has just landed on earth, you know nothing about the planet nor his inhabitants.
   You are near some buildings, a church and a prison.
   So, you take your Laser gun and blow them to pieces, you want to find the smaller component of the buildings because you think you will discover everything about them this way.
    Finally you find the smallest component, a brick, and you decide that you know that buildings are originated by bricks, so you develop a theory around bricks evolving, etc.
    You´ll never know what the buildings were, what was his function, you´ll never know the difference between a church and a prison "Studying" bricks.
      And this is all, if someone comes and explains you that the origin of the buildings was AN IDEA, you´ll never believe him because you KNOW that buildins are built by bricks.

[taurus]

all your considerations share one weakness. you declare the frame to be equal to the image.
would you say, the plane is fractal, just because a 2d fractal shows up on that plane?
i would not!

regards

[stereoman]

all your considerations share one weakness. you declare the frame to be equal to the image.
would you say, the plane is fractal, just because a 2d fractal shows up on that plane?
i would not!

regards

I´m sorry, english is not my native language, and in the school I learned french, so I have learned a bit by reading things in the net and there is a lot of things I miss.
    Can you explain your viewpoint a bit more? I can´t imagine why you say this.

[Tglad]

Things can have a fractal distribution in time, such as earth's orbit (year), moon's orbit (month), earth's spin (day). That doesn't mean that time itself is fractal.
There is a thread you might like, about the idea of dynamic fractals: http://www.fractalforums.com/ifs-iterated-function-systems/fractally-animating-fractals/


Les chose peut avoir une distribution fractal en temps, comme l'orbite de le terre (un an), l'orbite du lune (un mois), le circulation de la terre (jour). Ca ne veut dire que le temps lui meme est fractal. (Pardon le mal Francais)
Il y a un thread(?) que vous pourrez aimer, en sujet du l'idee de les fractals dynamique: http://www.fractalforums.com/ifs-iterated-function-systems/fractally-animating-fractals/

[stereoman]

Thanks for the explanation, Tglad.
 Well, first of all someone must define what is time other than cosmic  motion, because if time is created by cosmic motion, it can´t exist as a frame for time, that´s obvious.
  The reference frame is always relative, a year is a reference frame for our lives, but is also referred to a bigger frame, let´s say one cycle of the sun around Sirius an so on,.
That´s it, in a fractal construct, each level is the reference frame for the following level, since our perception is somewhat locked to Three dimensions, if we move up or down, we lost one dimension and gain another.
  Being the Universe a fractal construct it have no start and no end, there can´t  be a reference frame for time created by time itself, it´s impossible.

   But ancient cultures had solved this problem long time ago, time being some kind of unperceived geometry for us, they placed this geometry in a reference frame: Eternity.
   Eternity means an Ethernal Now from this viewpoint, all things are and happen Now, but we can´t perceive such a construct being locked to 3 dimensions and need time to preceive such a complex universe, just like you need time to visit a city, even ifthe whole city exists in full right now.

[stereoman]

There is a thread you might like, about the idea of dynamic fractals: http://www.fractalforums.com/ifs-iterated-function-systems/fractally-animating-fractals/

 

 Hi, I can´t follow the full reasoning in this thread but I understand that time is the key to show life, in fact I´m interested in create some animations around this idea, being a living fractal the ultimate purpose, so, If you have any ideas, I will be glad to make the animations.
   Many thanks for the french translation, it´s really kind from your part.

[Sockratease]

If current theories are true, time does indeed have a beginning  (not sure about an end).  Time started with The Big Bang because under such strong gravity, time was "stopped" or essentially non-existent.

The notion of "before" that is meaningless.  To ask about "before time began" is a contradiction because the word "before" implies the passage of time, and therefore one can not sensibly discuss time passing when it is either stopped or non-existent.

A bit hoopy, but it's an ancient argument dating back to St. Augustine when asked what god was doing before he made The Universe, and has withstood "The Test Of Time"  

[stereoman]

If current theories are true, time does indeed have a beginning  (not sure about an end).  Time started with The Big Bang because under such strong gravity, time was "stopped" or essentially non-existent.

The notion of "before" that is meaningless.  To ask about "before time began" is a contradiction because the word "before" implies the passage of time, and therefore one can not sensibly discuss time passing when it is either stopped or non-existent.

A bit hoopy, but it's an ancient argument dating back to St. Augustine when asked what god was doing before he made The Universe, and has withstood "The Test Of Time"  

From my viewpoint, time being a condition of our perception, can´t be related in any way with the beginning of the Universe.

We know that the scale goes to infinity in both directions, up and down, so, we can´t imagine the true shape or size of the Universe.
The BigBang theory (it´s a theory), it´s based in the fact that the Universe is expanding, but anything in this Universe expands and contracts alternatively, so, we can assume that we are witnessing the expansive phase of something, thinking fractally, the breathing of a Living Universe.
I will believe in the BigBang theory when you show me a man that was a kid that exploded.

[Sockratease]

The BigBang theory (it´s a theory)...

I'll tell you the same thing I tell those who say "Evolution is only a theory" - So is Gravity, but I don't see you jumping out of any buildings, and nothing ever falls up when I drop it.

It may be only a theory, but it's the best explanation we have.

But ancient cultures had solved this problem long time ago, time being some kind of unperceived geometry for us, they placed this geometry in a reference frame: Eternity.

Most cultures have Creation Mythology.  In all of them, The Universe is brought into being from nothingness.  The Cyclical Universe of endless expansion/contraction scenarios still allows for a beginning of time and the distinct fact that while it is possible to speculate about things on either side of our current cycle, nothing meaningful can be said about those states of being.  Thus the assertion that discussing such things is meaningless.

Fun.

But meaningless.  

Nothing can be proven, or even examined, about such things.  It's all idle speculation which amuses and provokes thought, but it's a dead end.

[Jesse]

Nothing can be proven, or even examined, about such things.  It's all idle speculation which amuses and provokes thought, but it's a dead end.

I will agree with you in most parts but not to the "dead end" conclusion.

The best proof for the big bang theory was found by a micro wave background radiation coming from all directions of the universe.
It fits perfectly because this light was predicted by the theory when the density of the universe decreased after a short time after the "bang" so photons could travel between the matter.
We can now in the present receive this light, so presence is connected with the past, that is why cosmology reveals so much about the past.

Science is much more intersting and living than most people guess, i guess.
 

[stereoman]

   The BigBang model doesn´t fit with any human experience, exactly the same happens with the Evolution theory, this only is enough to take care.
"As above, so is below", this is the guide for a fractal Universe like ours, that´s always been called analogy.
    And, while there are analogies for a breathing universe, there aren´t for an exploding universe, if you understand fractals you must see it, all living things expand and contract, but no living things explode, seems strange to have to say such things.
    And is strange because you and me know that nothing coherent can result from an explosion, try it a million times but you´ll never obtain a cathedral blowing up a bunch of rocks.
     So, to say that it´s the best explanation we have   sounds very strange, since there are better explanations from more than 2000 years ago.   

[Sockratease]

I will agree with you in most parts but not to the "dead end" conclusion.

The "dead end" I mentioned was the big bang.  In theory we can study events virtually up to it, but absolutely nothing before it.

   The BigBang model doesn´t fit with any human experience, exactly the same happens with the Evolution theory, this only is enough to take care.
"As above, so is below", this is the guide for a fractal Universe like ours, that´s always been called analogy.
    And, while there are analogies for a breathing universe, there aren´t for an exploding universe, if you understand fractals you must see it, all living things expand and contract, but no living things explode, seems strange to have to say such things.
    And is strange because you and me know that nothing coherent can result from an explosion, try it a million times but you´ll never obtain a cathedral blowing up a bunch of rocks.
     So, to say that it´s the best explanation we have   sounds very strange, since there are better explanations from more than 2000 years ago.   

"As above, so is below" is a statement used in religious dogma, I have never heard it used in any serious Scientific argument.

The so-called better explanations from more than 2000 years ago do not hold up to analysis. 

And yes, there are living things that explode.  That's how many spores spread.

Remember the fractal analogy you are using - if the formula is bad, no patterns emerge.  Given the right formula though ...   

[Jesse]

The "dead end" I mentioned was the big bang.  In theory we can study events virtually up to it, but absolutely nothing before it.

Similar to the language barrier, yes. 

Maybe we will find information that give us more insight, but for now the beginning seems to be also the start of time and space itself.

So the big-bang is not an explosion in spacetime but more an explosion of time and space itself.

stereoman:
   The BigBang model doesn´t fit with any human experience

You would not call scientists humans?