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: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned

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.


See now your getting into physics and chemistry. I do like those subjects. Now your making some sense which is observable and I can relate to. Alright now your using the term believe. Now you are working on the assumption that it had to be hydrogen and helium. That has not been proven true. Okay so you believe that through fussion in star's heavier elements are made? Why and how? Quantum physics has a few off shoots that doesn't agree with experiments of their own to back them up. Quarks is as far as we can go now. They have to be made of something also in order to even exist and so on and so forth. And the conclusion is that with what we think we know vs what we do not know will always fall short and will always rely on theories based on old information. History has proven this. I will take a Proof over theory any day. We need a different way of going about things.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by xynephadyn
 


Agreed.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
There's a good book called the holographic universe i think you might enjoy,
i forget who it's by but a simple internet search will find the answer



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LASTofTheV8s
 


Yeah that is true, but that is a little off topic.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Patmcc88
 


Thanks I will look into it.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 



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.


Complete rubbish; The Big Bang Theory rests upon quiet a few assumptions, which it would work if they were true. The Big Bang Model doesn't fit with what is known today, so cosmologists have had to invent new thing's to make this model fit with what actually is observed. Dark matter/energy is an invention of convenience, in that it can not be directly observed or detected. Essentially, unscientific. Detecting it's "effects" is moot as there are other theories/modifications to theories that explain what is observed without inventing convenient invisible matter.


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:


While it does have trouble explaining everything, it does explain much more than the Big Bang Theory does. It's already established that space is filled with a plasma, so we do need to take into the accounts the properties of a plasma, we simply can't ignore it. I personally think the underlying problem is a lack of proper explanation of what gravity is, once we have that pegged down, maybe everything else will fall into place better.


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


How can we draw that conclusion? By assuming certain variables as constant and extrapolating them backwards in time? Come on now... If the universe really did have a beginning, it's much older than what we pretend it is.


-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.


I think that's just rubbish personally. The space between objects can expand, but the space inside atomic nuclei does not? What is so different about the space within atomic nuclei? Expansion has never been proven, only conjectured based on an inferred correlation of redshift as equatable to the Doppler Effect.


-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.


Yes, *if*, and yet there are other models that explain the CMB without the religious cosmic egg.


-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.


The conditions of the big bang were no different than the conditions of a plasma. I find it more believable that the law of conservation is obeyed by the fabric of reality transitioning through various states.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



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


No, the two forces are not the same. Please learn something before you post. I want *YOU* to actually *SHOW ME* that what *YOU* are claiming is really true. Go look it up, cite your sources, quote from them. I can tell you right now what the different forces are that come into play.


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


No, fractals don't have an end. Sorry bud, your not as smart as you keep pretending to be.


why do you care to find the answer so much?


To *LEARN*. You should try it sometime, it's pretty fun!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





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


its a fact.

or shall i load up my fractal programm and show you the mathmatical algritham that makes it so..



[edit on 4-1-2010 by 13579]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





To *LEARN*. You should try it sometime, it's pretty fun!


Learn what? is the point in case..

You see you can not accept that aspect can you? LEARN WHAT ? .. nevermind.

and the universe is not fractal.. as it has a start point and end

its connection with you life and atoms is fractal

and the is no DEFINITION of what A universe in fact IS

unless you know something i DONT

thats why we called it the big BANG..

NOTHING ?> UNIVERSE > SOMETHING

the universe is only the some of its part and is not the same "entity" as what made IT is it?

thats why we have logic and choas sirex

and thats why the universe "its self" IS NOT FRACTAL only the connection of you and it ARE fractal "in nature"

sheesh... talk about the total miss understanding of words.. i spell like crap but at least understand how to use them in context and relation of the given subject and how it is you GET fractals

MATH



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I think some of you might find this site of interest. goldennumber.net...

I think the universe we can perceive spawns from simple instructions, them instructions are nothing more than a pattern and that pattern is Phi.

From Phi spawns our reality and probably more or even everything.. It is the creator of fractals in that it creates the endless spiral, only your perception of the spiral ends.

I hope someone can make sense of that. It's not entirely right but it's important, i do know that.

So phi spawn fractals, but fractals themselves are can be noticed throughout our world simply by zooming in or out....



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



Learn what? is the point in case..


Everything.



and the universe is not fractal.. as it has a start point and end


If you knew how to read, you would know why this statement has no meaning to me. Why would you argue with me over something we agree on?



NOTHING ?> UNIVERSE > SOMETHING


Who says "nothing"?



sheesh... talk about the total miss understanding of words.. i spell like crap but at least understand how to use them in context and relation of the given subject and how it is you GET fractals


This is cute, reminds me of the little engine that could story.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Hey Sirnex. Was I right about how we do not know the current positioning of the galaxies because of their distance from us, or am I over looking some sort of information?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by sirnex
 


Hey Sirnex. Was I right about how we do not know the current positioning of the galaxies because of their distance from us, or am I over looking some sort of information?


Personally, I think your right considering that redshift is assumed to be an accurate measure of distance. Unfortunately, this has never been proven on such large scales and I've read something about redshifts shown to be variable and not so accurate for measuring distances and velocities. I would have to find the article again if you want to review it.

Also considering (at least in my opinion) the many inaccuracies, assumptions and paradoxes of the big bang model, other models such as the EU/PC theories appear to more accurately describe what is observed without creating unobserved phenomena to explain what is observed. If this model proves to be more accurate, then it casts immense doubt over the age of the universe, it's size and the distances we assume to be accurate today. The big bang theory was developed almost a hundred years ago as was a few other theories that have since been proven wrong. Science isn't exact and it isn't set in stone. As we make new observations, we have to discard old theories if those observations are in conflict with new observations and discoveries. Such appears to be the case with the big bang.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Yeah. It's just that with the speed of light and their distance from us they could have changed direction and we would not even know it for some time to come.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Yes, they could have changed directions because of the time it has taken for the light to get to us. And the way that we know the distances of galaxies that are very far away is also theoretical. It is not the red shift, the red shift only tells us how fast they are moving away, not how far away they are. The way that we determine their distance is by the luminosity of a certain type of supernova. Type 1a supernovae are all believed to emit exactly the same amount of light. Therefore when we detect a type 1a supernova in a galaxy we can determine how far away the galaxy is because the luminosity is proportional to the distance from earth if the amount of light emitted is fixed. We use this measure in conjunction with the red shift when we make the claim that older more distant galaxies are moving away faster.

Admittedly, all claims of science are theoretical. That goes for cosmological claims, as well as astronomical claims. It could be that the galaxies changed direction, or disappeared, or turned into butterflies in the time since they emitted the light that we are seeing. The problem is that there is no reason to think that any of those things happened.

Given that we cannot be positive about any claims that we make about the universe: what it was like at the begining, what the distant galaxies are doing now, or what the properties of those frequencies you mentioned earlier are; given than these claims can never be proven with absolute certainty to be true, if we want to form beliefs about reality, which many of us do, then we have to look at the avalible theories and evidence and draw conclusions based on those things. With no evidence, we have no reason to believe. With evidence, we have a reason to believe. I have a strong belief in the established laws of physics because they are experimentally confirmed on earth all the time. I have no reason to believe that the galaxies far away changed direction because there is simply no evidence for it.

I understand that the unexplained is important to your world view, and I think that is totally valid. I don't understand why you choose to believe things that you don't have evidence for. Or things that contradict scientific principals for which there is a ton of evidence. Yes, science has been wrong. But it's also been right a lot! Look at space travel and medicine and computers. Mysticism is interesting, but does not yield testable theories, it's idle speculation. If there are frequencies that we cannot detect, how do you know about them? If we fully embrace your perspective, and fully reject mainstream science, where does that get us? Science is actionable, mysticism is only comforting.

Finally - and I am genuinely interested in an answer to this question - given two sides of an argument: one with mountains of evidence and hundreds of experts who have spent years studying it supporting it, the other with very little evidence and most of its support derived from anonymous blogs and youtube videos; why on earth decide to believe the latter?

How does your theory of the universe stand up to the level of scrutany that you are giving the mainstream theory?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I'd think the only thing that could be said truthfully is; some parts of nature and the physical universe resemble graphic representations of fractals but do not meet the criteria of being actual fractals, so the resemblance is coincidental. Beyond that?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 



Yes, they could have changed directions because of the time it has taken for the light to get to us. And the way that we know the distances of galaxies that are very far away is also theoretical. It is not the red shift, the red shift only tells us how fast they are moving away, not how far away they are. The way that we determine their distance is by the luminosity of a certain type of supernova. Type 1a supernovae are all believed to emit exactly the same amount of light. Therefore when we detect a type 1a supernova in a galaxy we can determine how far away the galaxy is because the luminosity is proportional to the distance from earth if the amount of light emitted is fixed. We use this measure in conjunction with the red shift when we make the claim that older more distant galaxies are moving away faster.


Okay. Let me get this strait. By the luminosity of certain types of super novas we tell the distance since they are believed to emit...EXACTLY....the same amount of light? What is the equipment that measures this, or is it just theoretical? Numbers are a theoretical object created by man to try and manipulate his reality of understanding reality.


Admittedly, all claims of science are theoretical. That goes for cosmological claims, as well as astronomical claims. It could be that the galaxies changed direction, or disappeared, or turned into butterflies in the time since they emitted the light that we are seeing. The problem is that there is no reason to think that any of those things happened.


Lol. There is no reason for anything according to the science of today. Actually it is as if science has taken reason out of the equation entirely. Science keeps searching for a reason, but it will never find it. It keeps going, bigger and bigger, smaller and smaller, there is no end. A fractal universe could give science the Unified Field Theory, that today's science is so desperately searching for. With all the Theoretical Idea's they cannot except that it is that simple.


Given that we cannot be positive about any claims that we make about the universe: what it was like at the begining, what the distant galaxies are doing now, or what the properties of those frequencies you mentioned earlier are; given than these claims can never be proven with absolute certainty to be true, if we want to form beliefs about reality, which many of us do, then we have to look at the avalible theories and evidence and draw conclusions based on those things. With no evidence, we have no reason to believe. With evidence, we have a reason to believe. I have a strong belief in the established laws of physics because they are experimentally confirmed on earth all the time. I have no reason to believe that the galaxies far away changed direction because there is simply no evidence for it.


The evidence for fractals are there. You called it a coincidence. When you want to learn anything you rely on the senses of your body to interpret them correctly right? A fractal universe would prove how everything works. Is that what you are looking for? I can tell you have an intelligence in the science astronomy that is beyond mine. Learn about the fractal universe theory and give it the contemplation that it does deserve.


I understand that the unexplained is important to your world view, and I think that is totally valid. I don't understand why you choose to believe things that you don't have evidence for. Or things that contradict scientific principals for which there is a ton of evidence. Yes, science has been wrong. But it's also been right a lot! Look at space travel and medicine and computers. Mysticism is interesting, but does not yield testable theories, it's idle speculation. If there are frequencies that we cannot detect, how do you know about them? If we fully embrace your perspective, and fully reject mainstream science, where does that get us? Science is actionable, mysticism is only comforting.


How do you think of a fractal universe as mysticism? It is scientific. Geometric shapes. Is not Geometry used in science? We use it everyday is some for of fashion. Everything that we see has a geometric shape. Everything that we hear has a geometric amplitude. Yes frequencies are geometric. If there are frequencies we cannot detect, how do I know about them. Good question. What is the parameters of the most sensitive piece of equipment that detects frequencies? That is our limit right now. We develop a machine almost everyday for something. What ever the parameter we set for the detection system that we build is all it can detect. Lol. Not all of science is actionable, if is was theories would not exist. There's that word mysticism again.


Finally - and I am genuinely interested in an answer to this question - given two sides of an argument: one with mountains of evidence and hundreds of experts who have spent years studying it supporting it, the other with very little evidence and most of its support derived from anonymous blogs and youtube videos; why on earth decide to believe the latter?


I can answer that using your own words

Yes, they could have changed directions because of the time it has taken for the light to get to us. And the way that we know the distances of galaxies that are very far away is also theoretical.
You see, when we are taught to believe in theoretical more than actuality, we actually become theoretical.


How does your theory of the universe stand up to the level of scrutany that you are giving the mainstream theory?


That is not for me to say. Let everyone decide for themselves.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'd think the only thing that could be said truthfully is; some parts of nature and the physical universe resemble graphic representations of fractals but do not meet the criteria of being actual fractals, so the resemblance is coincidental. Beyond that?


What is the criteria for being a fractal? Who decided it? And has theory of the criteria been substantiated by an actual proof? That would be needed in order to completely refute the fractal universe.

What is the proof that you need to believe it?




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join