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

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

The numbers are not straight forward because we are trying to describe a perfectly ballanced system in a continual state of flux held together by the imaginary number zero that can never be atained but must exist in order for any information/universe to exist/be observed.

I believe we are on the right track to a formula.

Adding the result of the first mandelbrot set to it's first inverse set's result would give us a number such as 5 just for example.

Now we use that number as our mass along with the gravitational constant and speed of light to give us our swartzchild radius.

We then use amperes circitual law to determine the strength of the magnetic toroidal field generated by our black hole based on our initial value for mass of 5 at 1 revolution to determine the magnetic toroidal fields strength and therefore minimum amount of finite space it can be contained within.

You could pop out a model based on one revolution per combined set in order to determine initial field strength from initial mass.

Because our formulas are constant our scale can be whatever we like so 5 can be 5 million as long as our revolutions are 1 million.

The magic will be in finding the amount of flux or resistance the system operates within.

The equation for determining the strength of a magnetic toroidal field in flux is basically the same as amperes circitual law, but seems to use some modifier to solve for....yup you guessed it our imaginary friend 0.

I may be oversimplifying things here, but after looking for/at these mathematical formulas I would love to see it modeled in something like mat lab.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

The more I think about it the more I want to model it. Heck we could start with the atomic mass of hydrogen as our black holes mass for example:

1.00784 would be our value for mass represented as m. g is the gravitational constant. c is the speed of light so solving for Rg gives us the swartzchild radius for hydrogen.

Now we solve for Rg using the formula Rg=2gm/c2

We can now use the conductive value of hydrogen which is 0.18 W/mK and a revolution of one and plug them Into the formula for amperes circitual law to determine the resulting magnetic toroidal fields strength and therefore minimum amount of space needed for our universe to manifest hydrogen.

We could then let it spin up growing in mass taking snap shots at each element's atomic mass and resulting field strength all the way up the periodic table of the elements.

Why?

Because each snapshot of our model would be representative of the universe the moment each element came Into existence progressing either up or down the periodic table of elements through time depending on how you choose to observe its motion towards or away from perceived entropy.

All the snapshots would be observations of the universe from the zero plaines perspective, and the parts in between would be representative of the intiger version of our universe.

The parts in between our snap shots would model the information we have always known existed but could never observe from across the imaginary 0 plain.

It would be like finally having a picture of Dave who represented my impossible to realize but obviously existant perfect inverse.

If I am .1 he would be my -.1

This would allow us to glimpse reality as it would appeer from the perfect imaginary perspective of the 0 plaine aka god.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

The numbers are not straight forward because we are trying to describe a perfectly ballanced system in a continual state of flux held together by the imaginary number zero that can never be atained but must exist in order for any information/universe to exist/be observed.

To the lay person yes but I found the mathematics pretty easy in third year applied maths degree. It was mainly Markov Chains, Stochastic matrices and similar.

I was completely and utterly lost when trying to translate it back in back into real world outcomes though and my brain would feel like it was on fire if I considered any of this while doing the maths and it would be like hitting a brick wall - I had an appreciation for it but no where near clever enough to comprehend it let alone truly understand it.

Here's code for a very basic triangle/prism fractal - worked in Matlab 5 but never used the newer versions.

%% Inputs parsing
assert(nargin < 6,'Too many input arguments.');
if ~nargin
nb_it = 3;
option_display = true;
M1 = [0.5*sqrt(3) 0 0];
M2 = [0 1 0];
M3 = [-0.5*sqrt(3) 0 0];
elseif nargin > 0
assert(isnumeric(nb_it) && nb_it == floor(nb_it) && nb_it >= 0,'nb_it parameter value must be numeric positive or null integer.');
if nargin > 1
if nargin < 4
error('The three input arguments M1, M2 and M3 must defined together.');
else % check M1, M2, M3 same size, dim
assert(isequal(size(M1),size(M2),size(M3)), 'All inputs points must have the same size.');
assert(isequal(numel(M1),numel(M2),numel(M3)), 'All inputs points must have the same number of elements (2 or 3).');
assert(isequal(ndims(M1),ndims(M2),ndims(M3),2),'All inputs points must have the same number of dimensions (2).');
assert(isreal(M1) && isreal(M2) && isreal(M3), 'All inputs points must contain real numbers only.');
if nargin > 4
assert(islogical(option_display) || isnumeric(option_display),'option_display parameter type must be either logical or numeric.');
else
option_display = true;
end
end
else
M1 = [0.5*sqrt(3) 0 0];
M2 = [0 1 0];
M3 = [-0.5*sqrt(3) 0 0];
option_display = true;
end
end
warning('on');
if option_display && nb_it > 7
warning('%s triangles to display ! Make sure your graphic card has enough memory.',num2str(3^(nb_it+1)))
end
warning('off');
%% Body
nb_max_it = 9;
sample_step = 2^(nb_max_it-nb_it);
% Create a meshed triangle
[V1,T_array_1] = sample_triangle(M1',M2',M3',sample_step);
% Middle edge vertices
edg_idx1 = 1 + sample_step/2;
edg_idx3_vect = cumsum(edg_idx1:1+sample_step);
edg_idx3 = edg_idx3_vect(end);
edg_idx2 = edg_idx3 - sample_step/2;
V_array_1 = V1;
% Iterate over nb_it
p = 0;
while p ~= nb_it

new_V_array_1 = repmat(V_array_1,[1 1 3]);

for j = 1:size(V_array_1,3) % loop on current nb Sierpinski triangles

new_V_array_1(:,:,3*(j-1)+1) = sample_triangle(V_array_1(1,:,j)',V_array_1(edg_idx1,:,j)',V_array_1(edg_idx2,:,j)',sample_step);
new_V_array_1(:,:,3*(j-1)+2) = sample_triangle(V_array_1(1 + sample_step,:,j)',V_array_1(edg_idx3,:,j)',V_array_1(edg_idx1,:,j)',sample_step);
new_V_array_1(:,:,3*(j-1)+3) = sample_triangle(V_array_1(end,:,j)',V_array_1(edg_idx2,:,j)',V_array_1(edg_idx3,:,j)',sample_step);

end

V_array_1 = new_V_array_1;
p = p+1;

end
V = V_array_1(:,:,1);
T = T_array_1(:,:,1);
for k = 1:size(V_array_1,3)

T = cat(1,T,T_array_1(:,:,1)+size(V,1));
V = cat(1,V,V_array_1(:,:,k));

end
%% Display
if option_display

figure;
set(gcf,'Color',[0 0 0]);
t = trisurf(T,V(:,1),V(:,2),V(:,3)); shading interp, hold on;
t.EdgeColor = 'g';
set(gca,'Color',[0 0 0],'XColor',[1 1 1],'YColor',[1 1 1],'ZColor',[1 1 1]);
colormap([0 1 0]);
axis equal, axis tight;
camlight right;

end
end % Sierpinski_triangle
%% sample_triangle subfunction
function [V, T] = sample_triangle(V1, V2, V3, nbstep)
% Create sampling grid
global Ndim;
Ndim = size(V1,1);
% (V1V2, V1V3) base
u = (V2 - V1);
v = (V3 - V1);
V = zeros(sum(1:nbstep+1),Ndim);
nu = u / norm(u);
nv = v / norm(v);
stepu = norm(u) / nbstep;
stepv = norm(v) / nbstep;
k = 1;
% Sampling & vertices generation
for m = 0:nbstep

for n = 0:nbstep

if m+n

delete - I think the latter half of the code is triggering some ATS anti code-hack thingymabob as It wont show up in posts - can try PMing you if you feel it may be useful.

a reply to: bastion

What would be more helpful would be for somone to model both the mandelbrot set and its inverse progressing in opposite directions out from the zero plaine of a black hole along with the resulting magnetic toroidal field.

That is what I believe an accurate cosmological map of the universe would look like.

Let me know if you need help. I included the nescisary formulas and equations above but lack the skills to assemble a working model in mat lab.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

I really do think you are ascribing the Mandelbrot Set to more than it should ever be. Fractals are quite interesting, but the Mandelbrot Set (and all fractals) exist in Euclidean space. Two dimensions only.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Some would argue that the entire universe as we observe it could be a hologram being projected from a euclidean space such as the event horizon of a white hole.

For illustration check this out from: m.youtube.com...

"Something a little different today! This video is a collaboration with fractal artist Yann Lby.

This video projects the 2D Mandelbrot fractal into 3D using the iteration data for the vertical axis.

It is rendered with Yann's own software MMY3D. Make sure you check out his amazing collection of 3D fractal zooms. www.youtube.com...​

a reply to: bastion

Here is a link to a great article explaining the speed a black hole spins at compared to the radius of its event horizon in order to conserve its angular momentum.

phys.org...

The formula gives us the proper rotational speed of a black hole based on radius. Basically the smaller the radius is the faster the black hole must spin. Right up to the universal speed limit of the speed of light.

We can get the radius of a black hole by plugging its mass along with our gravitational constant and speed of light into the equation.


Rg=2gm/c2

Where Rg is our swartzchild radius aka the radius of our black hole. G is our gravitational constant. M is our black holes mass and c is the speed of light.

Using the atomic mass of hydrogen of 1.00784 we could then calculate the swartzchild radius of hydrogen.

We can then take the swartschild radius of hydrogen along with its conductivity of 0.18 W/mK and our black holes implied rotational velocity and plug them into amperes formula of circitular law and we would be able to calculate the strength and therefore size of our black hole's magnetic toroidal field.

We could then do as I suggested before by letting it spin up taking snap shots as each elements atomic mass is achieved within our black hole and measure the corresponding magnetic toroidal field for each element.

This would give us a snap shot of our universe the moment each element came into existence.

In effect we could gain the perspective of the imaginary 0 plaine and watch as both hydrogen and anti-hydrogen for lack of a better term come into existence and continue to do so all the way up the periodic table of elements.

Heck we could even use it to create an exact model of the universe the moment the next new element and its corosponding anti-element will come into existence.

Here is a link to the best graphic representation I could slap together with my limited paint skills of the Mandlebrot and its inverse set up as i have envisioned within a toroidal magnetic field with a black hole at its equator.

flic.kr...

I would way rather see this in mat lab with its actual corresponding toroidal magnetic field in all of its glory.

a reply to: Stevenmonet
Well if black holes pull in and white holes spew out then the theories on magnetism and electricity are supported.

Can you tie Bhirkland currents into your theory? I don't have a full grasp of the mandelbrot. A lot of what you says ties to some of my own theories and tests.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

I couldn't say without doing some research on them, but I'm open to trying.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

I just checked en.m.wikipedia.org...

The first thing I noticed is how they bisect the earths toroidal field at its poles and at half the distance from the toroidal magnetic fields equator and each pole.

Check out the image on that wiki page and look at the earths magnetic toroidal field represented by the yelow concentric rings originating from the north pole and propagating east to west and towards the south pole now notice where the two aligned sheets of birkeland currents contact with the earths surface in relation to the earths magnetic toroidal field.

See how they hit on the same spot on both sets of yellow rings once on the eastern most ring once on the ring equidistant from the east pole and earths north pole.

The same pattern repeats on the western pole side.

I think wiki has got this right they are a result of convection occuring between the inner and outer boundaries of the earths magnetic field, solar winds and the interplanetary magnetic field.

I have no doubt that similer phenomona can and are occurring on a much grander scale when envisioning a grand unified theory of the universe such as I have proposed.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Your theory seems to have many elements of my own I have played with. Mine is similar to electric universe theory combined with some hollow earth elements.

Your theory should be able to tie Bhirkland currents into the picture. Similar to your black hole and white hole being opposites tie in well with my magnetism, electricity, inirtia theory that conduction also plays in.

It's all plus and minus or positive and negative.

If the ground or earth's crust is the ground or negative connection. What is the universes ground if you scale up. Also what might be the ground or negative connection if you scale down to say a grain of sand or atom quantimly speaking.

I know my response is all over the place but it's too massive and detailed to give a better understanding but at all follows all the groundbreaking discoveries and physics.

Project sapphire multiplied my efforts as I have always felt the sun is a electrical ball. Then the ground being maybe the black hole and can only flow one way like electrical discharge. Then are white holes spewing the data and charges back out or is the black holes doing it with the pole discharges. A lot of unanswered questions but a lot of dots connect without dark energy or matter.

Last rid bit is sun spot relations to black holes.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

That's some good info I'm going to add to my data.

This should tie into Tesla's power tower and the finding of charges increasing with elevation as you get closer to the atmosphere. I always thought the firmament was the layer that was maximumly charged and the earth's surface the ground or there is your positive and negative connection.

this is also tied into one of my theories since I was younger living in Florida and I still do it to this day. I can tell you within 30 minutes of when a cloud is going to produce lightning.

To me it's pretty basic and I put this together when I was little learning for my dad who was a nuclear engineer and master electrician.

Atmosphere the positive connection in the ground the negative. As the clouds build the moisture in them acts as a conductor and when the clouds get high enough they complete the current and you have lightning.

Of course it's more complex but that's putting it in a nutshell.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Well I found a great article explaining how the toroidal field of a super massive black hole at the center of a galaxy was recently observed to be feeding the black hole generating it.


astronomy.com...

My model speculates that a similar process is actually the correct cosmological model of the universe though all that we observe is only one hemisphere of the universe as a whole.

The event horizon of the black hole is the imaginary 0 plain between the rational number products represented by the mandelbrot set and the inverse mandelbrot set's integers represent the other hemisphere. The universe is being contained within the magnetic toroidal field of the black hole.

Our observable universe exists on the rational number side of the 0 plain as one hemisphere of the system while the integer side or other hemisphere is obscured from view by the black holes event horizon.

Man I want to model this so bad.

Black holes are a microcosm to the macrocosm of a super massive black hole that would be the 0 plaine between our observable universal hemisphere and its twin, similar to how the galaxies they produce would be the microcosm to the macrocosm of the hemisphere of the universe we can observe if my black hole magnetic toroidal field cosmological model is correct.

It's crazy how you can zoom out of the universe and a single atom and they look nearly identical.

a reply to: jjkenobi

This is very close to what my model of the universe would look like. All that is missing is to super impose a toroidal field over this model.

youtu.be...

a reply to: Stevenmonet
Wow awesome article, news and data. This will get me back on the dig.

I have to look into the mandelbrot still.

If you were able to map it that would be awesome. Is 3d even enough to map something like that?

Holy cow this lady has it almost down pat she is so close I had to shoot her a reply on her video. She has been working on this longer than I have been alive.

She explains how the mandelbrot set can easily be extrapolated to 4 dimensions how time is itterations, utterations cant be undone, and the mandelbrot is a black hole.


30 mins long but if you have kept up with this thread it will go by in a blink. Video has li ks to her paper and discussion on mandelbrot and quasi black holes in the videos description.

I invited her to ats to discuss my theory. I hope she comes by and say hi. Who knows maybe she is already a member.

youtu.be...