At last I can start posting some images of a very old series of mine, called:
Mathematics, the language of nature
These were some of my very first steps in photography with the good old Canon T70. And so I know that you will find many many mistakes and things that can be done much better. So please, tell them to me! Tell them to me since this series deserves to get better in the sense of building the bridge between "practical" everyday and "theoretical mathematics", pure mathematics, mathematics with no kind of consideration of such miserable things like "practical applications... ;-) Which by no means indicates that mathematics are no good for practial applicatiosn too, but such applications are not the target of any mathematicician. A mathematician examines such "constructs" with no respect to any possible material reality. And then it turns out that each of those contructs is some kind of mental "mapping" onto the so called real world. In the sense there is absolutely no other way to come close to nature... no "romantic" and no "nebulous etherial blabla"...
Or else, all you romantic souls, that look at such wonders like this shell, sit down and try to get as close to it, as a mathematicican does in his/her well conscious way without tirades and fanfares. Consider the pattern on the shell and consider the pattern on the page of paper behind it. The pattern on the page of papaer is... a crystal clear cellular automaton. Much material to read about that like for example:
(Wolfram might sometimes behave like a diva but he has every thinkable right to so do. ;-))
Well, that wonderful pattern is not "god" and it is not "devil" and it is not the typical impression about ontological questions, much like most ignorant wannabes would state. It is the result of a crystal clear definition for such an automaton - a simple algorithm, so simple that any kid could do that. And we see: In simplicity nature constructs complexity. Not in the complicated manners of religions, pseudo-philosophoes and the like, but in simplicity.
So the series will be hard in a double sence. Forst because of my photographical mistakes, about which I expect to read some hints. And then also because I know already now that some would still write me messages with their own "opinions about nature", thinking that scientific discovery of nature is something like a democratic voting according to the "own opinions". ;-)
Oh yes, I understand it now, Yazeed! Thanks a lot for telling me! I do have that shell again and also the book. So I think that I could go for it the way you implied here. I guess it will get more "macro-like" but let's see.
Thanks a lot for the in depth going comment, Visar! And yes, indeed it is photographically a rather problematic one for me too. I consider retrying that soon.
About the patterns here, it is only the chosen representation of the cellular automaton on paper that displays the pattern as triangles in a semi-regular series. In fact it is much more important that such a simple algorithm, like the one involved for the cellular automaton, is able to reproduce such unpredictable results, in the sense that there is no complete regularity of the whole pattern, but still it remains a pattern. So, we see that no "complicated rules" are necessary for "clothing a shell" into such a recognizable pattern. Actually up to now we didn't really exploit this in monuments and works of arts. We used the same principles in other ways but not really this way. The quite surprising thing is that such simple mechanisms can reproduce so well a variety of phenomena, starting at such patterns of shells and going up to scattering of elementary particles.
It does have to do with the Fibonacci (as a method) in some ways but this here is much more general. The Fibonacci sequence is quite regular and not unpredictable at all. (See attachment with the analytic closed form, which allows you to calculate the nth Fibonacci number without performing the summation.) But these patterns here cannot be "predicted" - they cannot be calculated (most of the time) with some certain analytic closed form.
Dear Nick . Just tried to minimize the weight of the blocks from the left. To give the bloc on the right. More attention. Because I predicted that this block is the main issue in the picture. Accept the greetings and respect . Yazeed .
I look at the photo and i shall not see to the fact that this is a failiure or a photographic masterwork- but, the subject of the it, does provide me very precise paterns- one being natural (the shell) where i see Fibonacci's sequence at its best, and the other (the pyramid like triangle) which is one of the strongest structures that human mind could have spotted. a single triangle, may well be composed of zillion smaller triangles which will only vary in size (and that we know that does not matter, its quality and what it rather says to us is what matters).
i mentioned up there that these two patterns that you present here are amongst the strongest paterns existing out there. they are the most precise, and they continue their precision to infinity. only having them understood could only made possible the construction of some of the greatest world~ how else!? ;) I mean, if we look at Pyramid, or the Pantheon in Rome,... they do stand in those patterns.
anyways, there is one thing i have to say about the composition of the photo. i like the fat that you have cut the edges of your subject and only presented the minor champions of what compose them- it is as if you're refering that we may well have a glimpse on the Universe but never see it all~
Image is very beautiful. The configuration that wonderful and strange indeed. But I hope that you have accepted the amendment by . All my regards ...............
0 
