Why is this group less active than historically?

[Roger Bagula]

There is a Number theory group at
Linked In that has grown to 13000 members
in a short space of a few years,
while at the same time posts here in sci.fractals
has decreased to nearly null.
Since my fractals self-similarity Google+
group is growing at nearly the same rate as my
parallel number theory group,
the reason doesn't appear to be about interest in the subject.
"Intellectual Fashion" maybe...
Can people get these use groups/ Google groups
on their apple/ ipad/ cell phones?
Maybe it is attention span and teachers in schools
not knowing about these free access discussion groups?
I left sci.math alone because it seemed to attack oriented
and destructive instead of educational.
Everything on the web seems to be timed
to only a few years and then, it is used up or gone?
In my old age I have come to realize not everything that is "new" is actually better than what came before.
Much of the new stuff is created to be "marketed"
so someone can make a big profit.
But math and in this case "fractals"
are fundamental and not going away long term.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

Hi Roger,

This group is not the only place from which discussions of fractal geometry and fractal modeling have largely disappeared. General interest in topics are heavily influenced by coverage in Nature, Science, New Scientist, Scientific American, and similar journals/magazines. These are places where many go to read about interesting developments in science. It is becoming increasingly rare to find articles on fractals in these seminal sources. There is still research involving fractals taking place, but there is definitely less than the in the 1980s and 1990s, and it is not considered as newsworthy.

Also, the topics in physics that dominate in the above sources are more or less alien to the fractal viewpoint. The fact that string theory, SUSY, WIMP theory, and conventional cosmology have experienced some serious empirical speed bumps does not seem to diminish their persistent promotion, popularity and media coverage.

Alas, this topic that we are so interested in has dropped out of fashion. Perhaps someday some fundamental advance that requires fractal modeling will bring the topic back into fashion. But don't hold your breath.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[sean....@gmail.com]

Everyone stopped using Google Groups because of spam, never to come back. If you want to put something in the public domain but not draw too much attention to it then it is useful. If you want to use bad language then it is good too. The only reason to visit sci.math is to marvel at the insanity of the trolls it attracts. At one time sci.math was okay. There were some interesting topics and you could get a sane answer to some question you had. Where is David Israel working these days anyway?

[Roger Bagula]

It appears rational discussion has returned to the usegroups/Google groups, as the spam and flamers have moved on?
That is good news for most of us as no one "controls" the destiny of Google groups, where owned Yahoo groups, Limked In groups,
Google communities are on the whim of the owners?
Fractals seem to have moved into a gray area between art, math
and science. Mandelbrot said he didn't start a "math" based
interest group/ publication organization, because he thought of fractals as a multi-area: science, mathematics, geology , cosmology...
I don't think he had in mind the current art and music trend that has brought fractals back in the 2010's.
But this trend is fine with me.
On David Israel: I don't know, I'll search.

[Roger Bagula]

Best guess this is the David Israel you are talking about( there are at least three : probably more like 20...)
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/296167/david-j-israel