It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Fractal Universe.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I came across this information and thought some people who knew anything about it could maybe help me understand it better.

www.fractaluniverse.org...



«The universe consists of a series of spiral bodies of diminishing size, each made in turn by plasma ejection and moulded by a spatial Coriolis effect: a rotating fractal universe.»

The Big Bang theory is a failure. It has failed because the wrong guesses were made by Einstein and Friedman. Their equations ignored electricity’s dominant role in the universe. So much for the supposed ‘rigour of mathematics’. Therefore research for the following hypothesis, was begun using pictures, not maths, but the attempt to explain the wide-spread occurrence of spirals in space produced unexpected results. The identification of similarities between all sizes of bodies from super-galactic to atomic brought with it, like it or no, a clear connection to Schroedinger’s quantum mathematics!

Only passing reference to the mathematical aspects are relevant in a pop science website such as this. Those interested should refer to one of the many books on the subject of Schroedinger’s atomic physics. Max Born’s “Atomic Physics” published by Blackie and Son takes some beating but it is hard to find now.

This website is an extended conversion of a slideshow that was presented to Manchester Astronomical Society in September 2002. It should be read through in order.

Fractals
Jupiter

Jupiter

Fractal patterns have been found in traffic flows, music, cardiology, electronics, meteorology etc etc. All fractals are made by positive feedback, no matter what the medium. They are neither stable nor static. They teeter at the edge of chaos. A minute touch and they may fly into wild gyrations, but equally a massive heave may fail to budge them. Prediction is far from assured. Determinists are uncomfortable with them.

Plasma science is well established, not least through the search for the cheap, clean energy of nuclear fusion. The search has failed so far because it involves an electrical process relying on ‘Z pinch’, a feedback process which, not surprisingly, is capricious. But Nature has mastered the art.



That is just some of what it has to say. For those of you that know about this, I could use help with some better understanding of it. For those of you who do not know about this, but are interested.....enjoy.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Conclusion]




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


I'm starting to love the plasma cosmology/electric universe theories. They appear to more easily explain what is observed in our universe without the necessary inventions of convenience, like dark matter/energy and magical inflationary fields. I also love how it cast's doubt on the age of the universe and the distance of objects in the universe.

However, I can't seem to be able to comprehend properly the relationship of the universe as comparable to a true fractal. A true mathematical fractal is an object in which each part contains the whole. You can travel through each point as if it were the whole itself. I just don't see this of the universe at all. Not even with three dimensional representations of fractals.

I've seen that website and tried reading it a few time's, I just don't understand how or where they are drawing their conclusions of a true fractal universe.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Conclusion
 


I'm starting to love the plasma cosmology/electric universe theories. They appear to more easily explain what is observed in our universe without the necessary inventions of convenience, like dark matter/energy and magical inflationary fields. I also love how it cast's doubt on the age of the universe and the distance of objects in the universe.

However, I can't seem to be able to comprehend properly the relationship of the universe as comparable to a true fractal. A true mathematical fractal is an object in which each part contains the whole. You can travel through each point as if it were the whole itself. I just don't see this of the universe at all. Not even with three dimensional representations of fractals.

I've seen that website and tried reading it a few time's, I just don't understand how or where they are drawing their conclusions of a true fractal universe.


Well first I would like to say; Nice to talk to you again. Long time no see.

Yeah that would be good info to have to understand it better.. I think they are drawing their conclusions from observation of the things we see, and relate them to each other and existence. Like the atom compared to the solar system, or next higher quantity of bodies , galaxies. I believe that is a very good method of learning.
The best way to see what something is made of is to dissect it and tear it down, but you have to see it first as a whole to understand what it does. Fractals answers that question with visual proof. I mean if we cannot rely on visual proof the foundation of science would fall.



[edit on 3-1-2010 by Conclusion]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
When you say that the big bang theory is a failure because of the mistakes of Einstein and Friedman, care to explain? The big bang theory is accepted by the mainstream because it is consistant with all observations, and predictions derived from it have been experimentally proven true. When we say that a theory fails, referring to a scientific theory, what that means is that observations have been made that the theory cannot account for, or that the theory makes predictions which can be shown experimentally to be false. Also, if you want to make claims about mathematical errors in Einstein and Friedman's important work, show us exactly what you are talking about.

The electric/plasma universe theories cannot be taken seriously in their current form because they are not consistant with observed phenomena, and they predict phenomena which are not observed but that should be easily observed. See:

www.bautforum.com...

Specifically post #17.

I'm hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree with this electric universe stuff but the OP sounded like that was what you were getting at. Either way, my main point of contention is your rejection of the big bang theory without much support. The fact that some people are suprised by how many spirals there are doesn't really go very far in refuting such a well understood and observationally verified theory as the big bang.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


No I didn't say that. I just wanted to learn more about it.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


There is no way the big bang was observed. lol. Come on now. Just like any other theory it starts with an assumption. Would you care to share the experiments that proved the big bang?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Well first I would like to say; Nice to talk to you again. Long time no see.

Yeah that would be good info to have to understand it better.. I think they are drawing their conclusions from observation of the things we see, and relate them to each other and existence. Like the atom compared to the solar system, or next higher quantity of bodies , galaxies. I believe that is a very good method of learning.
The best way to see what something is made of is to dissect it and tear it down, but you have to see it first as a whole to understand what it does. Fractals answers that question with visual proof. I mean if we cannot rely on visual proof the foundation of science would fall.


Yea, it's been awhile. Where you've been, or have we just not been in the same threads?

The biggest thing I have with the fractal universe is that the mathematical formula to describe a fractal is not very similar to what is observed, at least in my opinion. Even the solar system model of the atom is now a defunct model that doesn't accurately describe an atom.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
im going to remove what i said..

and you would not even understand it even if i tried..



[edit on 3-1-2010 by 13579]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Even the solar system model of the atom is now a defunct model that doesn't accurately describe an atom.


thats because someone patined you a pitcture instead of you learning about energy and matter sirex..

we know the atom does not look anything like a solor system.. but the force that makes our little planet spin

is the very same force that makes the electron wizz about

dont think people are so stupid as u think or "inteerpitate" just because they type in a way that makes you react

Oh wait look at that? you react..

i did state you are a partical.. yet you hate being menaingless dont you sirex..

you hate being a function when its obviouse that humans are no different to the electron

anway humans will understand symmetry in time

is a self reflection on being alive

and the universe is only scale..

the universe is a part of a mind .. based on logic

a fractal universe is not in fact what we are IN.. as you DO IN FACT DIE and as shown in FRACTALS

there is an end.. unless u keep asking


here is a tip

take one part of a fractal pictute put it in a box then try and zoom in

IT ENDS

just like the universe

just like me

just like u

why do you care to find the answer so much?

do you wish to become god?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I do not know what the equation for fractals even is...great more research...lol. How would an equation of something be similar to what is observed anyway?

I will need to look that up and get back with ya.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


Well we don't really ever end. It's more like a transfer of energy. It seems that the force of motion is essential to this existence. We will find out more after the transfer process.

Oh and fractals does not end. It is a continuous state of development. The force of motion effects and such.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Conclusion]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
There is no way the big bang was observed. lol. Come on now. Just like any other theory it starts with an assumption. Would you care to share the experiments that proved the big bang?


I know the big bang was not observed. I just said that the the theory is consistant with what we do observe. Also, I didn't say that experiments proved it for sure. However, predictions have been made based on the theory, and then confirmed experimentally.

-First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

-Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

-Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.

-Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

www.big-bang-theory.com...

Those things taken together make for a fairly strong theory.


EDIT: When I said that you said that the big bang theory failed it was not yet formatted as a quote from an external source. My bad.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by OnceReturned]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Google Video Link



These videos give a good overview of how the universe "works"



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned

Originally posted by Conclusion
There is no way the big bang was observed. lol. Come on now. Just like any other theory it starts with an assumption. Would you care to share the experiments that proved the big bang?


I know the big bang was not observed. I just said that the the theory is consistant with what we do observe. Also, I didn't say that experiments proved it for sure. However, predictions have been made based on the theory, and then confirmed experimentally.

-First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

-Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

-Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.

-Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

www.big-bang-theory.com...

Those things taken together make for a fairly strong theory.


EDIT: When I said that you said that the big bang theory failed it was not yet formatted as a quote from an external source. My bad.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by OnceReturned]


Scientifically speaking there is no experiment that has ever proved a beginning to our universe.

At the rate galaxies are moving away? Listen. Since we have had astronomy and the rate at which galaxies would move, which to us would appear as very, very, very, slow because of their size, we would not live long enough to take measurements that could prove any of that.

For a galaxy to move one billion of a fraction of its size would take millions of years to observe it. Oh....one of the new scientific theories is that they are expanding faster and faster. lol.

Third? Listen to what you said. The observable universe. If it pervades the observable universe, how did they observe it? Nobel prize. lol. Yeah our President got one of those. And the negative 454.765 does not suggest heat, but rather very cold....

Finally an abundance of certain light elements suggest that something once more dense than anything we know of existed. Hmmm. By the way the word suggests is very subjective. Sorry that does not make any sense at all.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Gloria Gypsy
 


Yes. I have seen those. They are very interesting and would explain how things really are. But they have to be tested first.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Scientifically speaking there is no experiment that has ever proved a beginning to our universe.


That's true. And it appears to be impossible in principal to prove scientifically that there was a begining to the universe. However we ought not just throw up our hands and forget about the whole issue. We can still ask the question, "Did the universe have a begining?" and we can look for clues. Most scientists believe that we have found those clues, and that they point to the idea that the universe did have a begining. For example we know that the universe is expanding, so we can think about that process in reverse and reason that at some point in the past it was probably all together at a single point.


Originally posted by Conclusion
At the rate galaxies are moving away? Listen. Since we have had astronomy and the rate at which galaxies would move, which to us would appear as very, very, very, slow because of their size, we would not live long enough to take measurements that could prove any of that.


Well, your line of reasoning is sound, but your conclusion is not correct. We don't have to wait to see them move over our lifetimes to figure out that they are moving. There is something called a red shift. Anything that produces waves is subject to this effect. When something producing waves is moving towards you, the waves that it is producing get squished together. When the wave producing object is moving away from you, the waves get pulled apart. This effect is obvious if you stand next to the road and a car drives by. As it comes towards you the pitch of the engine increases, and then as it passes and goes away the pitch decreases. The change in pitch is what happens with sound waves. With light waves(from stars in galaxies) moving away causes the light to look more red and moving towards causes the light to look more blue. Therefore when we look at stars and galaxies far away, by measuring their color we can determine if they are moving towards us or away(and to some degree how fast).


Originally posted by Conclusion
For a galaxy to move one billion of a fraction of its size would take millions of years to observe it. Oh....one of the new scientific theories is that they are expanding faster and faster. lol.


Older stars that are farther away exhibit greater red shift than closer younger ones, this implies that the longer they exist the faster they go. So the universe is speeding up.


Originally posted by Conclusion
Third? Listen to what you said. The observable universe. If it pervades the observable universe, how did they observe it? Nobel prize. lol. Yeah our President got one of those. And the negative 454.765 does not suggest heat, but rather very cold....


Yes, "of all the things a fish may discover in its life, water will surely not be one." When AT&T first built transoceanic communication lines they found that even in the middle of the ocean there was a constant minor interferance. A large radio telescope was built in the United States to determine the source of the interference. It was found to be coming from everywhere. And yes it's very cold, the coldest natural radiation anywhere, but it has been "fizzling" since the begining of time, and is spead over the entire universe. The point is that it is greater than zero and therefore exists, not that it is strong.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Finally an abundance of certain light elements suggest that something once more dense than anything we know of existed. Hmmm. By the way the word suggests is very subjective. Sorry that does not make any sense at all.


The singularity at the time of the big bang was not made of atoms. It was too hot for even electrons and protons to stay together. We believe that the way that elements heavier than Hydrogen and Helium are created is through fussion in stars. This is an ongoing process, the conversion of helium and hydrogen into heavier elements. When we look around, we find that hydrogren and helium and the most abundant elements in the universe by far, but we also find many other elements all over the place. So if we've established that stars are the engines that create heavier elements and that hydrogen and helium are the fuels, then we can conclude that this process has not been going on infinitely long since most of the hydrogen is still left. This process seems to have had a begining. So then the question is why in the begining was there almost exclusively hydrogen and helium? Well it turns out that hydrogen nuclei can fuse to form helium 4. So now we have to explain why in the begining there was hydrogen. It seems that hydrogen nuclei are formed by combining two of the six types of quarks, namely up and down quarks. So then we expect that before hydrogen the universe contained only quarks and energy. Quarks and energy are what we expect to have come out of an "explosion" like the big bang, based on supercollider experiments and the equations of high energy physics and quantum physics.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
There is no way the big bang was observed. lol. Come on now. Just like any other theory it starts with an assumption. Would you care to share the experiments that proved the big bang?
It has been theorized, that the ONLY way the Big Bang could have happened, is by INTERACTION from an Intelligent Interference. Something had to kick it off.
Obviously, this would mean that something also Observed it happening.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by LASTofTheV8s]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Fractals are literally everywhere!

Fractals are the building blocks of energy. Energy is seen as geometric fractal patterns.

Not only are Fractals the basis for all life, but you can see such evidence in that of a tree- a sea shell- a galaxy- the earth from space!

Fractals are the universe!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 





That's true. And it appears to be impossible in principal to prove scientifically that there was a begining to the universe. However we ought not just throw up our hands and forget about the whole issue. We can still ask the question, "Did the universe have a begining?" and we can look for clues. Most scientists believe that we have found those clues, and that they point to the idea that the universe did have a begining. For example we know that the universe is expanding, so we can think about that process in reverse and reason that at some point in the past it was probably all together at a single point.


Do you have any idea how many frequencies resonate through this universe? Do you think it is just the one's we can measure? Even with just the one's that we can measure only a tiny fraction are known as clues. We take these few clues and try to put them together like a jigsaw puzzle. Should we give up? No, I don't think so. Most scientists believe? Well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion on a matter.




Well, your line of reasoning is sound, but your conclusion is not correct. We don't have to wait to see them move over our lifetimes to figure out that they are moving. There is something called a red shift. Anything that produces waves is subject to this effect. When something producing waves is moving towards you, the waves that it is producing get squished together. When the wave producing object is moving away from you, the waves get pulled apart. This effect is obvious if you stand next to the road and a car drives by. As it comes towards you the pitch of the engine increases, and then as it passes and goes away the pitch decreases. The change in pitch is what happens with sound waves. With light waves(from stars in galaxies) moving away causes the light to look more red and moving towards causes the light to look more blue. Therefore when we look at stars and galaxies far away, by measuring their color we can determine if they are moving towards us or away(and to some degree how fast).


Well I can see your reasoning of sound waves. Now does light wave's act in the same matter? And if the Universe is really just 15 billion years old, would it not take sound a lot longer than that to even reach us from most of the galaxies out there? I do not think sound even moves through that medium. Now the Black Hole effect. Do we have any equipment which can measure the effects of a black hole's, which science now say's is in the center of every galaxy or rather suggests it, tension on all the frequencies? The speed and direction of a galaxy that we are seeing is a picture from millions, if not billions, of years ago. It could have shifted another direction and we would not even know it.




Older stars that are farther away exhibit greater red shift than closer younger ones, this implies that the longer they exist the faster they go. So the universe is speeding up.


And how exactly do they determine how far away a star is? From images long before their current date? They is no way, as of now, that we know where the star's and galaxies are actually located today.




Yes, "of all the things a fish may discover in its life, water will surely not be one." When AT&T first built transoceanic communication lines they found that even in the middle of the ocean there was a constant minor interferance. A large radio telescope was built in the United States to determine the source of the interference. It was found to be coming from everywhere. And yes it's very cold, the coldest natural radiation anywhere, but it has been "fizzling" since the begining of time, and is spead over the entire universe. The point is that it is greater than zero and therefore exists, not that it is strong.


Okay. Lets only use facts. Your saying that a large radio telescope was pointed everywhere. Number one that would take an eternity to do. It could only detect the parameters of its programming. To say that it's the coldest natural radiation anywhere is only an assumption. It's only the coldest natural radiation that we have measured. By the way why do you consider Kelvin absolute zero? Because you have been told it's absolute zero? My point is that everything is just a theory. A theory is nothing more than a guess with some clues, based on images that are not of current status, which are a few jigsaw pieces, and by that are claiming that the near infinite puzzle of the beginning can be solved.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join