None.

http://www.enchgallery.com/fractals/fractal%20images/dewoncedar1.jpg

image too big to post

One of my favorite artists, Cory Ench.

Don't you get it yet? Everything around you is a fractal. Look at the way trees grow, or how human cells grow...This is understanding how God works...you can't reproduce nature with simple fractal graphic generators...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 28 2009, 6:23 am by Howler.

image too big to post

One of my favorite artists, Cory Ench.

Quote from Centreri

Fractals are fractals, and are nice. They can be, I suppose, be called 'art', but you cannot say that a fractal will change your worldview. It's a fractal, not a masterpiece on par with Van Gogh. Stop being so offended when people don't consider it to be.

Also, I believe Mathematica should be able to handle Fractals beautifully, but I never actually had Mathematica (I should). Other than that, there's this... but, again, what comes out won't necessarily be art.

Also, I believe Mathematica should be able to handle Fractals beautifully, but I never actually had Mathematica (I should). Other than that, there's this... but, again, what comes out won't necessarily be art.

Don't you get it yet? Everything around you is a fractal. Look at the way trees grow, or how human cells grow...This is understanding how God works...you can't reproduce nature with simple fractal graphic generators...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 28 2009, 6:23 am by Howler.

None.

Quote

you can't reproduce nature with simple fractal graphic generators...

Nature doesn't create perfect fractals anyway. Clearly you've never been outside.

None.

Quote from Howler

Don't you get it yet? Everything around you is a fractal. Look at the way trees grow, or how human cells grow...This is understanding how God works...you can't reproduce nature with simple fractal graphic generators...

Just some friendly advise the last bit, but take it as you will.

Quote

Don't you get it yet? Everything around you is a fractal. Look at the way trees grow, or how human cells grow...This is understanding how God works...you can't reproduce nature with simple fractal graphic generators...

None.

Quote from Howler

I'm through saving your souls, I guess you could call me a quiter.

"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"

How do fractals save our souls? Fractals -> Souls? Error. Unable to compute.

And the only thing that grows fractally are crystallines. Such as ice, or diamond, because of the chemical characteristics of Water and Carbon.

Oh yeah, just random stuff. I found out boogers are shiny when you see them through a microscope.

And the only thing that grows fractally are crystallines. Such as ice, or diamond, because of the chemical characteristics of Water and Carbon.

Oh yeah, just random stuff. I found out boogers are shiny when you see them through a microscope.

None.

Quote from BeDazed

How do fractals save our souls? Fractals -> Souls? Error. Unable to compute.

Red classic.

Quote from Howler

Bullshit. Clearly you live in a fantasy world. You are way over your head in bullshit.

Howler, you're not making any friends here. Just leave, and take your high and mighty air with you. If you think people are still seriously discussing this topic with you, you "live in a fantasy world."

Quote from Fire_Kame

Quote from Howler

Bullshit. Clearly you live in a fantasy world. You are way over your head in bullshit.

Howler, you're not making any friends here. Just leave, and take your high and mighty air with you. If you think people are still seriously discussing this topic with you, you "live in a fantasy world."

None.

No, things don't grow in perfect fractals. The golden ratio, for example, (1 sqrt(5))/2 is an irrational number, and while many plants may APPEAR to approximate this ratio, it's __only an approximation__. So long as atoms have a finite size it is impossible for a plant to grow in a perfect fractal. When the size of the fractal becomes 1/2, or 1/3, or 1/5 ect. the size of an atom, it's no longer a perfect fractal.

Still don't believe me? Good luck figuring this one out.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 29 2009, 7:55 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: got rid of part where you responded to the post i deleted

Still don't believe me? Good luck figuring this one out.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 29 2009, 7:55 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: got rid of part where you responded to the post i deleted

None.

Quote from Vrael

No, things don't grow in perfect fractals. The golden ratio, for example, (1 sqrt(5))/2 is an irrational number, and while many plants may APPEAR to approximate this ratio, it's __only an approximation__. So long as atoms have a finite size it is impossible for a plant to grow in a perfect fractal. When the size of the fractal becomes 1/2, or 1/3, or 1/5 ect. the size of an atom, it's no longer a perfect fractal.

Still don't believe me? Good luck figuring this one out.

Still don't believe me? Good luck figuring this one out.

There are infinitely more irrational numbers than there are rational number. Think about this one, between 1 and 2 there are an infinite amount of numbers. Though one could say that there are an infinite amount of whole numbers, there will always be an infinite amount of numbers between each whole number.

what are atoms made out of? Once you run a google search on that, tell me what those are made out of, and then those, and then those, and then those, ect...

Ever hear about how infinity can fit into a finite boundary? Still don't believe me? Good luck figuring this one out.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Feb 10 2010, 9:34 pm by Howler.

None.

Well atoms are composed of neutron and proton core with orbiting electrons. And the components of atoms are composed of quarks, the smallest particle known and observable by men. Still, no life on Earth exists infinitely, nor in our universe. Simply put, because the total mass of the universe is finite.

None.

Quote

There are infinitely more irrational numbers than there are rational numbers, hence proving that all life exists infinitely,

Quote

because the world grows in patterns of sacred geometry

Quote

Ever hear about how infinity can fit into a finite boundary?

Quote

Simply put, because the total mass of the universe is finite.

Aside from that, Howler's point was that if atoms are composed of something, then whatever composes the atoms are composed by something smaller and smaller, on and on and on into infinity. What he doesn't realize, is that it doesn't matter, because the edge of a leaf or branch or whatever else he's talking about will be the boundary of the finitely-sized atoms which make it up, and all the quarks and gluons and whatever else are within the boundary of the atom, so don't matter when it comes to the length of the boundary. Since it's the atoms on the boundary, we're still dealing with finite sizes and therefore any ratio between some number of these atoms will only be an approximation of an irrational ratio like the golden ratio, since an irrational number cannot be represented as a fraction of two integers.

I would also like to point out the fact that the opening picture does not have any tetrahedrons in it, just equilateral triangles. I don't think anyone said this yet.

None.

Quote from BeDazed

Well atoms are composed of neutron and proton core with orbiting electrons. And the components of atoms are composed of quarks, the smallest particle known and observable by men.

Red classic.

[09:48 am]

MasterJohnny -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Delete all forums IMO leave only shoutbox

If we do this, I demand latex support for the shoutbox[07:25 am]

Lanthanide -- nah, it's just people generally want recompense for this sort of boring develoment[07:01 am]

NudeRaider -- ever thought about that? We must be a terrible community. Every admin or coder lost their motivation upon being in the job for a while.[05:41 am]

O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: that's how I feel it should be; but absent of another definition Cecil is unavoidably technically correct

Ah, the best kind of correct.[05:39 am]

jjf28 -- that's how I feel it should be; but absent of another definition Cecil is unavoidably technically correct [05:39 am]

O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- it's not turning it in to that code, it's just performing synonymous code[05:38 am]

O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- interpreting is just that, reading a little bit and then immediately running predefined code that does the intended operation ;o
Members Online: Roy