Mandelbrot set, the nature of the universe and black holes.

I have been watching the Mandelbrot set zooms on youtube lately and decided to look up the inverse Mandelbrot set.

This got me to thinking....

Zooming in aka running the Mandelbrot set as intended looks basically the same as zooming out aka running the inverse of the Mandelbrot set.

To see this just watch some of the zooms and you will notice points where it seems you are zooming out.

You can Google inverse Mandelbrot set for further explanation or youtube it.

What does this have to do with the nature of the universe and black holes.

Point of fact all equations become infinite at the center of a black hole.

Point of fact from our perspective the universe appears to be expanding at an infinite rate even to the point of giving rise to claims of eventual universal entropy.

So, whether approaching infinity aka falling into a black hole, or approaching entropy aka being ejected from a white hole/big bang; I speculate the universe would be perceived the same.

Just as we see with the Mandelbrot set.

In fact even quantum and astro physics show us the equations work the same weather you run time forward aka towards entropy or backwards aka towards infinite complexity.

So what am I getting at?

Well it should be obvious by now.

Our entire universal perspective is caused by either exiting a white hole/big bang, or falling into a black whole. And sense they are one and the same we will never know, and we will never stop.

Whether we zoom in on the ever more quantum level of reality, or we zoom out to the ever more macro it eventually all becomes the same, and it goes on infinitely.

a reply to: Stevenmonet
I love fractals/chaos theory

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on

from Augustus De Morgan's A Budget of Paradoxes (1872)

When I heard this rhyme as a kid,it really bothered me that we could just be living on one cell inside a giant creature,which walks one another world too big for us to even comprehend-and that world may be a cell within an even greater sized creature...etc.

It boggled my mind that what we call our universe may just be one tiny cluster of cells in something alive,ancient and incomprehensible.
Our universe may be even more insignificant than that-it may be that our universe is not a "thing" at all-it could just be a vast space which exists between other bigger things.

Everything we can ever see,know,experience-may all "exist" in pure nothingness.


Nice thread.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

I have thought similar for a long time. Scale in or out is one and the same. I think they use to call it the cork theory.

Things like brain nuron compared to universe.
Atoms and cells compared to the universe.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

If I am correct then all accurate measurements of universal phenomena and structures from the largest to the most infantisimal should support the theories of cosmological expansion from a big bang/exiting a white hole ie, "all that we see is a result of the universe spotaniously expanding out infinitely from some prior super compressed state, and cosmological contraction/falling Into a black hole ie, "all that we see is the result of our uninverse being swallowed by a super massive black hole" equally.

If I am right the facts should bare out both hypotheses equally.

Even though the claims seem to be mutually exclusive, they In fact are indistinguishable from one another when observed.

This apparent paradox is born out and fully visualized when comparing the Mandelbrot set to the inverse Mandelbrot set.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

I'm trying to make this as simple as possible for a layman like myself to relate to.

If the Mandelbrot set is a representation of infinite expansion within a finite space, then the inverse Mandelbrot set is a representation of a finite space being infinitely compressed.

Being that each set is a perfect expression of apparently opposing cosmological models the similar results become so paradoxical that they are indistinguishable from one another when tested/observed/measured/expressed.

It works on a 1.5 Dimension (fractal) scale using a 12 Dimension universe with standard time and hypertime (where time can move forward and backwards) being the 6th dimenson.

I did a model of it at Uni for my dissertation but really struggled to complete the latter stages, it was based on the idea that gravity is a fractal mechanism - a couple of weeks for before deadline a paper was published using the exact same idea so I had to abandon that and come up with a new subject. Their paper is here: arxiv.org...

If you have Matlab I made a code for zooming on Sieprinski triangle zoom - not quite sure what any of it means but it looks pretty.

a reply to: bastion

Wow you are way smarter than I am, yet it seems we are both Intrigued by this simple yet seemingly complex paradox caused by what I believe is falsely assuming that a cosmological model based on infinite expansion should be mutaullay exclusive to and therefore produce measurably inverse results from one based on infinite contraction. We thought that when measured against observations only one model can be proven correct.

We found that both models produce the same result and both results match the observable universe.

If Infinite contraction and Infinite expansion on a cosmological scale both produce the same results when modeled and both are observed to be correct, then the implication to me is obvious.

If both cosmoligical models are correct as born out by observation then they can not be mutually exclusive.

Therefore the only correct cosmological model in my view would be the perfect combination of the two into one toroidal field running infinitely and in a perfectly ballanced state of both expansion and compression within a finite space.

I'm way to dumb to simplify it into one universal equation such as Einstein's e=mc2, but a toroidal feild is the only cosmological model my simple mind can come up with that combines both apparently mutually exclusive cosmological models Into one unified theory and it is the only model that resolves the false paradox of their producing indistinguishable results.

So yes both models are correct but only partially as we have shown and it is only paradoxical if we fail to realize the implication that the correct cosmological model of the universe is a toroidal feild which is the perfect combination of the two existing models into one fully unified feild in perpetually ballanced flux within a finite space.

For a layman like me to understand just picture the universe as continually being flushed down then spit out by one ginormous black hole contained within a perpetually ballanced unified toroidal shaped field.



Basically in my model zero is the imaginary number in perfect center of the black hole which is at the perfect equator between the north and south poles of the toroidal feild all matter exists in a constant and ballanced state of flux from the south pole to the north transitioning in state gradually from a positive integer to a negative depending on its position from its imaginary neutral state as represented by 0.


Man I hope that makes sense.



To me it is simple 0 is impossible it is imaginary because the space between -.1 and .1 is Infinitely divisible and yet we know there is the exact same amount of units that can be expressed to either side of the imaginary number zero as either negative or positive intigers. Just as one unit almost becomes 0 aka balanced it is instantly 1/2 as far away again, then half that and so on it can never become 0 or even cross over to becoming a negative and yet the information that both negative and positive intigers express exists and this forces us to conceputalize 0 as an actual number or state. The fact that both sides of 0 are expanding infintily at the same rate keeps the whole game going well....infinitely. No units state as a negative or positive intiger can be proven or disproven. The best we can do is imagine a distance from our imaginary number 0 and choose whether we express it as a positive or negative intiger based on our own perception of imaginary zero.

You can say for example I am equidistant from 0 from john and then decide to assign john a negative intiger perfectly opposite yourself as a posotive and from your perspective the math would prove you correct.

John can say the inverse and his math would be correct as well.

When In fact neither of you can truely be correct because 0 is an imaginary number.

Neither of you can ever reach 0 because your distance from it is infinitely divisible. Sense 0 is imaginary, equadistance from zero with another unit aka perfect duality is impossible. Yet without the concepts of zero, perfect dualaity, and negative and positive intigers information can not be shared expressed observed or measured.

The fact that Information exists at all proves that both yourself and john are in a continual and balanced state of both being correct and both being wrong.


This is my last edit I swear. Think of god as zero. It can never be realized yet the existense of information proves it exists, always has, and always will.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
a reply to: bastion

Wow you are way smarter than I am, yet it seems we are both Intrigued by this simple yet seemingly complex paradox caused by what I believe is falsely assuming that a cosmological model based on infinite expansion should be mutaullay exclusive to and therefore produce measurably inverse results from one based on infinite contraction. We thought that when measured against observations only one model can be proven correct.

We found that both models produce the same result and both results match the observable universe.

If Infinite contraction and Infinite expansion on a cosmological scale both produce the same results when modeled and both are observed to be correct, then the implication to me is obvious.

If both cosmoligical models are correct as born out by observation then they can not be mutually exclusive.

Therefore the only correct cosmological model in my view would be the perfect combination of the two into one toroidal field running infinitely and in a perfectly ballanced state of both expansion and compression within a finite space.

I'm way to dumb to simplify it into one universal equation such as Einstein's e=mc2, but a toroidal feild is the only cosmological model my simple mind can come up with that combines both apparently mutually exclusive cosmological models Into one unified theory and it is the only model that resolves the false paradox of their producing indistinguishable results.

So yes both models are correct but only partially as we have shown and it is only paradoxical if we fail to realize the implication that the correct cosmological model of the universe is a toroidal feild which is the perfect combination of the two existing models into one fully unified feild in perpetually ballanced flux within a finite space.

For a layman like me to understand just picture the universe as continually being flushed down then spit out by one ginormous black hole contained within a perpetually ballanced unified toroidal shaped field.


Basically in my model zero is the imaginary number in perfect center of the black hole which is at the perfect equator between the north and south poles of the toroidal feild all matter exists in a constant and ballanced state of flux from the south pole to the north transitioning in state gradually from a positive integer to a negative depending on its position from its imaginary neutral state as represented by 0.


Man I hope that makes sense.


To me it is simple 0 is impossible it is imaginary because the space between -.1 and .1 is Infinitely divisible and yet we know there is the exact same amount of units that can be expressed to either side of the imaginary number zero as either negative or positive intigers. Just as one unit almost becomes 0 aka balanced it is instantly 1/2 as far away again, then half that and so on it can never become 0 or even cross over to becoming a negative and yet the information that both negative and positive intigers express exists and this forces us to conceputalize 0 as an actual number or state. The fact that both sides of 0 are expanding infintily at the same rate keeps the whole game going well....infinitely. No units state as a negative or positive intiger can be proven or disproven. The best we can do is imagine a distance from our imaginary number 0 and choose whether we express it as a positive or negative intiger based on our own perception of imaginary zero.

You can say for example I am equidistant from 0 from john and then decide to assign john a negative intiger perfectly opposite yourself as a posotive and from your perspective the math would prove you correct.

John can say the inverse and his math would be correct as well.

When In fact neither of you can truely be correct because 0 is an imaginary number.

Neither of you can ever reach 0 because your distance from it is infinitely divisible. Sense 0 is imaginary, equadistance from zero with another unit aka perfect duality is impossible. Yet without the concepts of zero, perfect dualaity, and negative and positive intigers information can not be shared expressed observed or measured.

The fact that Information exists at all proves that both yourself and john are in a continual and balanced state of both being correct and both being wrong.

This is my last edit I swear. Think of god as zero. It can never be realized yet the existense of information proves it exists, always has, and always will.

Don’t worry. You’ll get to think about this again and again and, well, you get the picture. It is endless and the same - always.

Regarding the convoluted 'Mandelbrot effect' and mating toriods; A snake eating it's own tail comes to mind.

One thing that pesters me about such models of reality is the sense of being, ultimately, trapped. By that I mean being enclosed in a system forever beginning and ending in cycles. I would be relieved to think that at some point one could exit the self consuming snake ride.

a reply to: Baddogma

There is no escape! Just constant progression with all information being exchanged via 0 aka god.

Think of it as gods perfect model for infinite self discovery and growth where only 0 aka god has the true perspective and acts as the gateway for all informational exchange.

To us 0 is imaginary because to us it is unatainable, but all information in existence depends on 0.

From the perspective of 0 or god all information is was and will be at the same time and yet is ever growing in both complexity and simplicity forever.

The Mandelbrot Set and Inverse Mandelbrot set are not generated by the same equation.

They are not just one zooming in and the other zooming out.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Um wow hmmm how to say this.....

The mandelbrot set is produced by a very simple equation, and the inverse equation produces the inverse mandelbrot set, yet both sets produce such similar structures as to be indistinguishable.

So for example 2x2=4 4x2=8 going on forever produces the same structures as 2/2=1 1/2=.5 going on forever.

In fact the mandelbrot set is meant to express infinite expansion within a finite space such as the cosmological model of the universe based on expansion aka the big bang theory.

The inverse of the mandelbrot set is therefore an expression of the inverse cosmological model where the universe is being infinitely compressed aka the universe is falling into a black hole.

Sense both cosmological models are proven correct no matter how we measure them against our observations, their apparent duality or mutual exclusivity becomes a false paradox that can only be resolved when viewed as a toroidal feild both expanding and being compressed infintily within a finite space.

Neither equation ever ends running in opposite directions from 0 always in perfect ballance. Just as our universe is infinitly expanding and contracting in all directions within a finite space from the imaginary center point of 0.

I hope this helps you understand what I am trying to express, but if not; don't worry we literally have forever to relate yet we will never be in perfect agreement.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

I feel like you don't have a sound understanding of the actual mathematics behind the Mandelbrot set (or the inverse.) Yes, the equation is simple, understanding the equation is a different matter.

If you want to attempt to relate it to cosmological models go for it.

Your example of " 2x2=4 4x2=8 going on forever produces the same structures as 2/2=1 1/2=.5 going on forever." is not true (though you haven't provided nearly enough information for me to even guess at what structure you might be implying.) If you are talking strictly about a set of numbers, for starters the first one would be a subset of integers, while the second one would be a subset of rational numbers. Those two sets are not the same structure.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

The Inverse Mandelbrot is made with the equation z=z^2+(1/c). This is equivalent to mapping the Mandelbrot Set to the inverse complex plane. The initial teardrop shape gives way to features that are pretty much the same as the normal Mandelbrot once you get deeper.

Google is amazing, huh?

My understanding may or may not be sound, but I have based it on experience running through the sets.

I also feel I have atained at least the conceptual understanding of what mandelbrot's set as well as its inverse represent and express mathamatically.

Have you zoomed aka run either set yourself?

I have speant hours upon hours doing just that.

As for the structures I speak of you can call them geometric shapes and patterns because that is how these videos visually express the information which was mathamatically conceptualized by mandelbrot and many others before him as a simple formula describing the phenomena of infinite expansion within a finite space or its inverse. The formulas produce either a never ending string of rational numbers or intigers respective of what set you run.


You can question my understanding and that is fair to do by all means, but please if you have not done so yet familiarize yourself with the material as well if not better than you would have me, if we are to better understand the phenomena we wish to discuss.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

I have spent countless hours exploring fractals starting back in 2003.

I approach these much differently than you do though. I am a mathematician.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Great! Then what I am saying is that:

www.google.com...://inspirehep.net/literature/354915&ved=2ahUKEwiF-vKW58XuAhVdCjQIHf1fD-oQFjABegQIBBAH&usg=AO vVaw39yPrh7aKIuESDqb_YsTPt

The cosmological model based on deflationary theory above, and the inflationary cosmological model referenced bellow.

Are not mutually exclusive, but in fact describing the same concept but from polar opposite perspectives of a toroidal shaped field in finite space.

www.google.com...://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific -theory-not-anymore/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjmgJLg58XuAhWEHDQIHXz5A4oQFjAgegQINRAB&usg=AOvVaw29OpueWLmgc9-WXLg2m9Wi&cf=1

The easiest way I can express this is with the mandelbrot and inverse mandelbrot sets as representative of their perspective cosmological models.

The mandelbrot set being the expression of infinite inflation within a finite space makes it very representative of the cosmological models of the universe based on inflation theory.

The inverse Mandelbrot set is very representative of the deflationary theroy's cosmological models of the universe.

Sense both the cosmological models of deflation and inflation can give rise to a universe ordered in the manner we observe ours to be arranged just as we see expressed when running the mandelbrot set and its inverse it makes sense that both are correct and not mutually exclusive.

Therefore my postulation is simple.

The universe is inflating infinitly within a finite space, and it is also deflating infinitly within the same finite space.

This can most simply be expressed as a toroidal field.

A more accurate or mathematical representation would be the mandelbrot set and its inverse running from opposing ends of the imaginary center point of a black hole as expressed by 0 positioned at the equator of a toroidal feild contained within a finite space.


The infinite string of intigers expressed by the inverse mandelbrot set represents the negatively charged particles of the toroidal field and the string of rational numbers running out to infinity generated by the Mandelbrot set represent the positively charged particles of the same feild with 0 representing the imaginary center of the black hole located at the equator of the toroidal field.


I hope this helps explains how I relate the mandelbrot equation to the nature of the universe and black holes.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

I hope someday some brilliant mathematician such as yourself could express this concept in a simple equation such as e=mc2.

I can see it clear as day conceptually but as you can see I have a hard time relating it let alone refining it down into one grand unified theory expressed by one simple and elegant equation.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

I believe mathematics is our best attempt to understand everything and anything, so I certainly haven't disregarded your posts (even if I/we can't initially understand how certain pieces may be connected.)

You have a very interesting theory. Best of luck in your continued pursuit.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Ok so best I can do:

From encyclopedia britanica: ref:www.britannica.com...

Schwarzschild radius, also called gravitational radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. This phenomenon is thought to be the final fate of the more massive stars (see black hole).

The Schwarzschild radius (Rg) of an object of mass M is given by the following formula, in which G is the universal gravitational constant and c is the speed of light: Rg = 2GM/c2.

We know our mass for the model of our black hole at the center of our toroidal field is going to always grow. If we use the combined products the mandelbrot equation and its inverse as our mass the equation might look like this:



Rg= 2G(zn+1 = zn2 + c)+ (z=z^2+(1/c)/c2

We know our gravitational constant is 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

and the speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s

This means we have the math to describe a black hole with the mass consisting of the products of the mandelbrot equation and it's inverse combined.

Now how do we measure the magnetic toroidal field a black hole such as this would generate in order to define the minimum finite space it is contained within?

Well this is where Ampère's circuital law comes into play. I can't copy the formula as text so I'll link to the wiki:
en.m.wikipedia.org...

To see the formula just scroll down and click the tab marked:

Ampère's circuital law in cgs units

Make sure you use the one as corrected by maxwell.

I havn't put my theory down into as elegant of a mathematical formula as Einstein's e=mc2, but I'm hoping a mathematician amongst us may at least work with me on refining it into one.

Besides we got m/c2 so we are clearly using Einstein's theory of relativity as our basis for some of our math. This makes sense when working with universal constants after all.

So there we go folkes theoretical mathameticians wanted for revising a cosmological model that combines universal inflation and deflation into one simple grand unified theory of the universe.

Any takers?

I mean come on I'm willing to do my share with conceptualization now I just need my numbers guy/gal.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

The "numbers" side of it isn't straight forward, otherwise you could do it yourself (or someone else already would have.)

I wish I had enough free time to properly help you out here (if only to offer a more rigid explanation,) but I don't.