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.

 

There appears to be an unknown order in the universe! Carl Sagan

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Interesting...

This reminds me of my favorite Physicist, David Bohm... While still working on his mathematical formalism for his quantum potential, he saw a device that made him come up with his implicate order, and it made him wonder if the second law of thermodynamics is skewed some how. He questioned entropy, and whether there is such thing as randomness - he wondered if there is a hidden and complex order to the Universe that may not be readily detectable on our level of functioning....




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


The dispersion of galaxies in the universe looks like a neural network.

The universe is a work of art. It follows rules of fractal geometry. It is like the universe isn't told HOW to construct itself. it is just given general guidelines to follow.

But you see everything repeat. The spiral galaxy, and the spiral of a whirlpool. The neural network of the universe, It is wondrous, for sure.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by BellaMente
Interesting...

This reminds me of my favorite Physicist, David Bohm... While still working on his mathematical formalism for his quantum potential, he saw a device that made him come up with his implicate order, and it made him wonder if the second law of thermodynamics is skewed some how. He questioned entropy, and whether there is such thing as randomness - he wondered if there is a hidden and complex order to the Universe that may not be readily detectable on our level of functioning....


Hidden complex order? unknown to our current level of understanding? kinda sounds like analysing god in my eyes, or dare i say gods "footprints". just look at the measurement problem, relates directly to even the most massive structures in the known universe, does EVERYTHING we look at change just by focussing conscious thought upon it, kinda reminds of something i read a long time ago, some brilliant mind trying to work out the mathematical formula of the soul, you could say a lot quantum mechanics/potential etc is very similar to that persons search, trying to quantify the very essence of the unquantifiable, at some point were just too small to see the full picture,

[edit on 2-4-2010 by THEsmokefrog]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Hi,

Just for the record, and especially for those who may need to be reminded, Unity_99's posts involved no readily discernible scientific ideas or thoughts. I would ask him to elaborate but since no foundation is in evidence i am not sure if that will be of any use.

As to the original question it misses the point when it confuses the giant voids and 'walls' with 'order' when these structures have raised far more questions related to how much structure there seems to be in a universe which is far too young and with no known mechanism by which to achieve it.


The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls) we see in space [[17]], and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls. But this assumes that the initial directions of motion are special, e.g., directed away from the centers of voids. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of “viscosity” of space. To form these structures by building up the needed motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100 billion years. [[18]]

metaresearch.org...


So yes, there are people with actual degrees, and the required scientific training&knowledge, who's discussions and papers make for most interesting reading.

Regards,

Stellar



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


I actualy came upon this info after i made the post. Very interesting indeed!!

When I said order to the stars, I was mistaken, and it was cleared up for me by the following posts. However the information you brought up is truely mind boggling. Obviously we still have a lot to learn about the physics of the universe. I personaly believe that the physics of the universe, or the ones that get expressed the most, changes over time, based on the current state of the universe.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


reply to post by Phage
 


Excellent article link Phage! thanks!

And Thanks to you Maslo for clearing this up! I figured i had missed something.
Do you have a source for that info?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by THEsmokefrog

Originally posted by BellaMente
Interesting...

This reminds me of my favorite Physicist, David Bohm... While still working on his mathematical formalism for his quantum potential, he saw a device that made him come up with his implicate order, and it made him wonder if the second law of thermodynamics is skewed some how. He questioned entropy, and whether there is such thing as randomness - he wondered if there is a hidden and complex order to the Universe that may not be readily detectable on our level of functioning....


Hidden complex order? unknown to our current level of understanding? kinda sounds like analysing god in my eyes, or dare i say gods "footprints". just look at the measurement problem, relates directly to even the most massive structures in the known universe, does EVERYTHING we look at change just by focussing conscious thought upon it, kinda reminds of something i read a long time ago, some brilliant mind trying to work out the mathematical formula of the soul, you could say a lot quantum mechanics/potential etc is very similar to that persons search, trying to quantify the very essence of the unquantifiable, at some point were just too small to see the full picture,

[edit on 2-4-2010 by THEsmokefrog]


In my opinion God is a convenient way to explain a hidden complex order. It fits nicely with little explanation needed.

Remember, the rules and laws of physics are the same wherever you are, be it on Earth, Mars or in the middle of space. To me, it would make perfect sense for everything to have a similar order, regardless of which level you are speaking. All things big and small are affected by the laws of the universe in the same way.

With that said, by no means have we figured out all of these rules yet and we certainly can't yet explain their effect on such objects.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Hi Doomen,


Originally posted by VonDoomen
However the information you brought up is truely mind boggling.


Well i just provided a link but i am glad you find that site interesting. If you have time you can look at his theories on solar evolution and his alternative model for planetary formation as well.


Obviously we still have a lot to learn about the physics of the universe. I personaly believe that the physics of the universe, or the ones that get expressed the most, changes over time, based on the current state of the universe.


I think your making it even harder than it clearly is given how we not only seem to have significant gaps in our understanding but also sufficient observed contradictions to undermine a equally significant proportion of the what is often believed to be other
then a media created consensus conclusions and thus the apparent final word. Your suggestion/idea that the theories we currently efficiently employ in day to day engineering&cosmological models might not be universal does not seem to be borne out in astronomy, which is after all a study of the history of our universe, and would require doing away with relativity which fundamentally presumes the universality of local observations&laws.

So yes, don't go there for there be dragons( or god(s) depending on your proclivities).

Stellar


[edit on 6-4-2010 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   


Position 16:30 on the timeline shows one of the best representations of what you are referring to.

I also agree that they resemble neural networks.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join