Am I the only one who has no clue what symetric avenger is talking about??? This is the third thread that he talks about logic and chaos and I have no idea what he brings to the table. Am I alone here?

I read the beginning of this thread, and I like the concept of a fractal aspect to the nature of the universe. There's too many patterns that show up such that it's uncanny, and have considered it independently. However, I find that the fuzzy nature of atoms and probability involved in the valences and electron shells do not seem to compare well as a direct analogue to star and planetary systems. Even with asterod belts and ort clouds, I suspect planetary objects still don't look "fuzzy" enough. Also stars occasionally have this tendency to explode or turn into black holes, I'm not sure how that compares to atomic decay models.

For what seems like a better comparison, don't treat the electrons as a single particle, but as regions of higher charge density. (To account for probability and fluid-like wave/particle behavior in quantum experiments.) And guess what, then atoms in the fractal model for the universe compares well to another astronomical object. But it's at a much bigger leap in scale. Galaxies! (And some galaxies do indeed split, or seem to form more stable basic arrangements. So the atomic decay model comparison may be accounted for.)

Now take a galaxy, and imagine how it would look if you could do a time lapse exposure for hundreds of millions of years. Not only does it spin, but it wobbles. So your pic would form quite a fuzzy 3D blob somewhere between a toroid and a squashed sphere. Now compare that imagined pic to what images we can currently resolve of atoms.

If anyone had the time, I think it'd be neat to develop a database of known galaxies and their estimated mass. Then compare galaxies of similar estimated mass and see if the lumpyness/clumpyness of stars in the spiral arms is similar. The clumps of stars being "galactic electrons". I'd almost bet you could make a "galactic table of elements" by following through this process. (Of course if there's an analogue for isotopes, this might take even longer to do. Mass alone might not be enough to always separate distinct classes.)

Next is to look at galactic macro-structures. (galaxy clusters and superclusters) If you compare the macro-structures formed by chains of galaxies to atomic molecular structures, the similarity is almost ridiculous. (I'd swear some supercluster arrangements even look like organic molecules.) And if you can survey the macrostructures, and compare to the "galactic table of elements", I'd suspect there would be various "chemical properties" and "bonds" between differing galaxies.

Now if that works out, that would be weird. I wonder how a fractal universe model would work with string theory or dark matter? Seems like it may be disruptive to those models. But the folks who look into plasma structures and massive scale EM field interactions might be having fun with it.

Is there any chance anyone could rework the math and try testing the atom-galaxy variant? (I'm simply not patient enough to play with formulas and numbers, but I like coming up with hypotheses on things that seem to stick out when looking at and comparing them. Would be neat to see how it tests out.)

Of course if nobody likes this version, no biggie. Just figured it would be neat to have on the table as a closely related alternative.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by pauljs75]

I always thought the plotting of a subatomic particles path was merely a way of simplifying it so humans could actually quantify what was occurring, as opposed to a genuine hypothesis. Thus the spatiotemporal basis of plotting an atom compared to universal positioning of planets and so on would be pointless.

Am I missing something?

[edit on 22-9-2009 by ERAUQS]

I think the point is about mathematically exploring the analogies between the atomic world and the Universe.


So where is the OP? Haven't responded for aprox. 11 days 4 hours 21 minutes

[edit on 23-9-2009 by spacebot]

Originally posted by spacebot
[edit on 23-9-2009 by spacebot]

The problem with Diamond's Synchrotron is that it uses x-rays that are emitted by electrons to begin with in attempted to see electrons. Their wave lengths and intensity would correspond to bombarding the solar system with large and strong gravitational (and magnetic) fluctuations and possibly an endless stream of asteroids (of various sizes). Using this technology, it will disturb the orbital paths (position) of the atom's electrons greatly. Using this technology you still can't see a neutron or electron up close as if you where able to see Jupiter in the night sky using powerful telescopes. You can't see it's surface using this technology to decipher it's physical composition such as the matter density on the surface of an electron. By not being able to see this granularity of detail, science can't decipher correctly or prove correctly if their educated guesses and theories are actually correct. This is were my paper "Realitivistic Relativity" explores the alternative with surprising mathematical "coincidences" of which I have now 5 (haven't shared them all because I'm still working on a new paper).

This leads to another question asked by someone on this thread regarding electron clouds and why they don't look like "flat" planetary orbits. Again, at a velocity frame of reference equal to the speed of light for the entire star system (Sol system in our case) the planet's orbital velocity with increase to the speed of light and faster around the core of the system. That in itself makes the electron orbit a complete blur. It is equivalent to predicting the orbital paths of the gas giant planets billions to trillions and beyond years into the future. The probability of a correct prediction compared to actuality becomes less likely the further out someone predicts. The reason is "unknown" external interferences. These interferences, just as a rogue gas giant (electron), could severely affect the orbital inclination of the gas giants in the system. It is like bombarding an atom with a constant stream of electrons by using an electron microscope. The inclination of the orbit of electron and gas giant in this framework become interchangeable. It is also good to note that some recently discovered exoplanets have very high inclination degrees on their orbits. Every time we've attempted to observe an atom's electron orbits, our instrumentation externally affects the orbits of it's electrons in "unknown" ways such as changing their orbital inclination at orbital speeds at and beyond the speed of light. This change in inclination would make the speeding blur of electrons change into different shapes such as many pictures published by laboratories on the visual appearance of various atoms. Try this simple experiment, get a string and tie a pen at one end and with the other end spin the pen in the air. Once you have it spinning at a fairly high velocity observe the visual blur of the moving pen. Now move your arm up and down, or place the spinning pen in front of an air fan (analogy is our instrumentation), and observe how it affects this blurry visual shape produced by the spinning pen. Though this is a really simple example, the same principle applies to electrons in orbit around the nucleus of an atom at extreme velocities.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by MainframeII]

Originally posted by ERAUQS
I always thought the plotting of a subatomic particles path was merely a way of simplifying it so humans could actually quantify what was occurring, as opposed to a genuine hypothesis. Thus the spatiotemporal basis of plotting an atom compared to universal positioning of planets and so on would be pointless.

Am I missing something?

[edit on 22-9-2009 by ERAUQS]

Initially it was to simplify the atom, because Bohr himself saw a similarity between the two systems. "Things" circulating/orbiting around a "core". These things were quantifiable and distinct if we remove it the from the system...electrons can be counted and so can planets. What I've done is continued with that train of thought, and the train of thought presented by Einstein with inertial frames of reference, and essentially combined the two due to 2 mathematical "coincidences" which was the insight I believe we've been missing.


[edit on 27-9-2009 by MainframeII]