If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reality Carnival)   Yeah, yeah, we've all seen pretty fractal pictures befo... HOLY THIRD DIMENSION, BATMAN   (skytopia.com) divider line 122
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

30234 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Nov 2009 at 11:21 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-15 12:40:52 AM  
Awesome. Just found some new desktops!
 
2009-11-15 12:45:00 AM  
Kind of a Gaudi meets Giger feel to them. Very cool stuff.
 
2009-11-15 01:09:26 AM  
Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.
 
2009-11-15 01:19:36 AM  
Wow, that really looks like the 21st century should. If we cn't have flying cars, at least we can have awesome 3D Mandelbrots
 
2009-11-15 01:47:19 AM  
Awesome.

So when is Fractint 3D coming?
 
2009-11-15 02:11:05 AM  
Nice
 
2009-11-15 02:25:07 AM  
Beautiful.
 
2009-11-15 03:02:48 AM  
Very cool
 
2009-11-15 03:20:24 AM  
oldebayer: Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.


Kinda makes spending money on devices to see in ever greater detail, like the LHC, or deeper and further into the universe with the LBT seem kinda pointless and expensive.

Apparently physicists just need to spend more time playing with their broccoli.

Let me know when you get your grand unifying theory worked out, that is unless you disappear into a quantum singularity.
 
2009-11-15 05:39:55 AM  
In college I wrote programs to make 3d Lorenz attractors. Of course, using a 4.77 mhz PC with only 256k of RAM severely limited the detail I could generate. After all, I had to reserve some computer time to run my John Conway's Life program.
 
2009-11-15 08:26:43 AM  
Great find. Thanks, subby.
 
2009-11-15 09:20:39 AM  
mmmmmmmm Infinite surface are with finite volume. *transcendent*
 
2009-11-15 09:56:52 AM  
Awesome stuff.
 
2009-11-15 10:21:11 AM  
So who is going to be the first one to toss this stuff to a 3D printer?
 
2009-11-15 10:21:49 AM  
hmmm... I seem to be having difficulty picking my jaw up off the floor.
 
2009-11-15 10:36:09 AM  
Meh. Just looks like a bunch of close-up pictures of germs to me.
 
2009-11-15 10:38:56 AM  
HagarTheHorrible: So who is going to be the first one to toss this stuff to a 3D printer?

a big one so people can go spelunking, or maybe live in it in virtual worlds
 
2009-11-15 10:53:36 AM  
Paging BaseMetal, you are needed in thread 4770520.
 
2009-11-15 11:07:45 AM  
Now I want broccoli for lunch.
 
2009-11-15 11:20:04 AM  
where r u basemetal? awesome site subby
 
2009-11-15 11:32:18 AM  
Reminds me of my old tech teacher who build a program to zoom into a fractle, I remember playing for hours seeing how far into it I could go.

Obviously the shape never changed too much but as I zoomed in you could change direction slightly, changing the perspective.
 
2009-11-15 11:32:57 AM  
I don't want ice cream from Uranus.
 
2009-11-15 11:37:49 AM  
oldebayer: Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.


It might be good you went to sleep. That was sounding a bit out there.

In any case take fractals the other way. Fractal mathematics is great at predicting the way things get bigger. You should look into the work in biology dealing with this crap.

Branches on a tree, the circulatory system, genetics
Its all deals with fractal mathematics.
 
2009-11-15 11:47:21 AM  
Did anybody else click on this video? (new window)

Warning, may trigger acid flashbacks.
 
2009-11-15 11:53:59 AM  
img248.imageshack.us

What a 3 dimensional fractal may look like.
 
2009-11-15 11:57:57 AM  
oldebayer: the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect.

Zeno? Is that you?
 
2009-11-15 11:59:27 AM  
StarlingFive: oldebayer: Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.

It might be good you went to sleep. That was sounding a bit out there.

In any case take fractals the other way. Fractal mathematics is great at predicting the way things get bigger. You should look into the work in biology dealing with this crap.

Branches on a tree, the circulatory system, genetics
Its all deals with fractal mathematics.



Seeing these 3D models made me think of this exactly.

Too much of what resulted from simple maths turned out too organic for coincidence. It becomes fairly obvious that similar maths are at work defining the shape of matter.

Really farking cool.

/Thanks Subby!
 
2009-11-15 12:04:58 PM  
Are these proper 3D fractals or just colours replaced with height maps and wrapped around a sphere?
 
2009-11-15 12:17:20 PM  
abigsmurf: Are these proper 3D fractals or just colours replaced with height maps and wrapped around a sphere?

Someone needs to RTFA. Nice explanation of EXACTLY what they did.

/True 3d fractal
 
2009-11-15 12:23:16 PM  
pictures were cool, i enjoyed muchly.
 
2009-11-15 12:24:44 PM  
This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

/obligatory
 
2009-11-15 12:24:51 PM  
At risk of sounding trollish, I was doing this in POV-Ray in 1998

mason.gmu.edu

3-D slice of a four-dimensional fractal. I wish I still had the other renders, but I dropped that hard drive down some brick stairs moving out from college one winter :/
 
2009-11-15 12:26:14 PM  
Is fracint still around? Didn't see mention in TA. Could make 3D images with it on an 80286.
 
2009-11-15 12:38:37 PM  
Three Crooked Squirrels 2009-11-15 10:36:09 AM
Meh. Just looks like a bunch of close-up pictures of germs to me.


Yeah. The remind me of a picture of a growth taken out an 84 yr old woman's bladder.
 
2009-11-15 12:55:21 PM  
Zombalupagus: What a 3 dimensional fractal may look like.

No, THIS is what a three-dimensional fractal may look like:

www.maths.surrey.ac.uk

/google "Romanesque broccoli"
 
2009-11-15 12:56:59 PM  
lady_nocturne: Zombalupagus: What a 3 dimensional fractal may look like.

No, THIS is what a three-dimensional fractal may look like:



/google "Romanesque broccoli"


Here's the Wikipedia link. :-)
 
2009-11-15 01:01:00 PM  
famousp: abigsmurf: Are these proper 3D fractals or just colours replaced with height maps and wrapped around a sphere?

Someone needs to RTFA. Nice explanation of EXACTLY what they did.

/True 3d fractal


It isn't really. They perform a 3D to 2D transformation.
 
2009-11-15 01:05:09 PM  
i32.photobucket.com

Mandelbrots! Mandelbrots! Mandelbrots!
 
2009-11-15 01:06:47 PM  
Hmm... I don't get it. What's so special about this?
 
2009-11-15 01:31:57 PM  
abigsmurf: Are these proper 3D fractals or just colours replaced with height maps and wrapped around a sphere?

He seems to be using an inverse sterographic projection from the complex plane to the sphere. He doesn't explain it this way because he doesn't appear to understand much math.
 
2009-11-15 01:45:52 PM  
xkillyourfacex: Hmm... I don't get it. What's so special about this?

I don't really understand myself. I've never been very good at math, so it's understandable how I fail to see how math = pretty pictures.

/saved a bunch of them though
 
2009-11-15 01:47:20 PM  
 
2009-11-15 02:02:22 PM  
Batman in the Operating Room: I don't want ice cream from Uranus.

You'll eat what momma gives you, young man.
 
2009-11-15 02:03:05 PM  
AWWWWWWWWWSOME! My mind started playing the soundtrack to Star Trek: The Motion Picture when the Enterprise flew into the V'ger cloud as I looked at the images.
 
2009-11-15 02:15:41 PM  
xkillyourfacex: Hmm... I don't get it. What's so special about this?

Are you perhaps a fan of Thomas Kinkade's work?
 
2009-11-15 02:18:06 PM  
Like a coral reef on acid.

Very cool.

/toejam wins the thread, though
//oh, so you think you're better than me?
 
2009-11-15 02:18:29 PM  
stress tensor: AWWWWWWWWWSOME! My mind started playing the soundtrack to Star Trek: The Motion Picture when the Enterprise flew into the V'ger cloud as I looked at the images.

My mind thinks of Hellraiser. There's something very creepy and disturbing about those images.
 
2009-11-15 02:19:37 PM  
oldebayer: Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the standard rebuttal is this:
imgs.xkcd.com
As in "Pff, I guess your stupid physical universe is fine if you like blocky, grainy approximations of reality that take practically infinite memory and rendering time to look at even once. Hey, you like France? z(n+3) = z(n)e-2c. There you go, that's pretty much all there is to know about it. I saved you a trip."
 
2009-11-15 02:25:17 PM  
Does anyone else think H.P. Lovecraft when they see these?

Like, a temple made up of sculptures like this would set off all my Cthulhu alarm bells.

// thinking that "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" would make a rad ringtone
 
2009-11-15 02:42:54 PM  
HagarTheHorrible: Kind of a Gaudi meets Giger feel to them

That is a perfect description. Just wow, perfect.

semiotix: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the standard rebuttal is this:

Pretty much that. In math there is no smallest possible size. While in the physical world there is a smallest possible unit of space, the Planck length, in math there is no such constraint. And that math can go on forever doesn't mean it's not accurately reflecting the real world. Just that the real world has limits whereas pure math doesn't.
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report