The Instigator
Akhenaten
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
atjacobmajor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The earth is expanding (part 2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 630 times Debate No: 104194
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

Akhenaten

Pro

My opponent believes that all the current continental drift theories are valid. He has obviously been brainwashed by the system. Now, according to the continental drift theory, India was once part of Antarctica and drifted about 6,000 kms north and crashed into Asia. This caused the formation of the Himalayan mountains. lol
India must have had a lot of outboard motors attached to its southern border at the time. lol
This theory is ridiculous in the extreme. Why did only India move so far while all the other continents didn't move? Is it because India ate to much curry and did a big fart which propelled it across the Indian ocean? lol

Now, let's have a look at a map of the world's oceans and see what the age of the rocks are in relation to the fault lines in the middle of the ocean. Hmmmmm???? The rocks which are closest to the fault lines are all very young, while the rocks further away gradually get older? Hmmmm??? What could this mean? No, it can't be! The Earth is truly expanding!
Shock horror!!!!!!!!!!!
https://media.nationalgeographic.org...
atjacobmajor

Con

I am absolutely delighted that you wished to continue this topic with me :) I wish us both luck, and may the best debater win!

Note to readers and voters: If some of the things we are talking about is unclear, this is because this is a CONTINUATION of our previous debate, which can be found here: (http://www.debate.org...)

Now, without further ado, I accept this challenge and present my rebuttal!

"My opponent believes that all the current continental drift theories are valid. He has obviously been brainwashed by the system. Now, according to the continental drift theory, India was once part of Antarctica and drifted about 6,000 kms north and crashed into Asia. This caused the formation of the Himalayan mountains. lol
India must have had a lot of outboard motors attached to its southern border at the time. lol
This theory is ridiculous in the extreme. Why did only India move so far while all the other continents didn't move? Is it because India ate to much curry and did a big fart which propelled it across the Indian ocean? lol" This statement proves that you have no understanding of continental drift, and dismiss it without any real disputes. When you say that "the other continents didn't move," you are stating and extreme falsehood. They DID move. Surely, you know of Pangea, and other super continents that came before? They did move, and so did India. You appear to have no understanding of continental drift, and in order to debunk something, you must have such an understanding. Here is a very dumbed down solution, but I recommend you read upon it in detail here: (https://www.britannica.com...) But, in brief, continents drift because of currents from the mantle. It is an extremely slow, process but over millions of years, it happens.

"Now, let's have a look at a map of the world's oceans and see what the age of the rocks are in relation to the fault lines in the middle of the ocean. Hmmmmm???? The rocks which are closest to the fault lines are all very young, while the rocks further away gradually get older? Hmmmm??? What could this mean? No, it can't be! The Earth is truly expanding!
Shock horror!!!!!!!!!!!" My opponent continually seems to ignore the idea of seafloor spreading. Essentially, magma is pushed up and spread out on those creases in the ocean. It pushes the older rock out, which is why to older rock is always closer to the continents. When the older rock hits the continent, it gets pushed under. Read about it here: (https://www.nationalgeographic.org...)

Although there are many topics my opponent has failed to provide good rebuttals for or just simply ignored, however there is still the biggest hole in his theory which he has failed explain. WHERE DOES THE MASS COME FROM? As far as we know there is NO WAY to create matter without energy, and there is no way to create energy without matter! Therefore, if there is some sort of nuclear power plant within our planet IT WOULD NOT BE CREATING MASS! Earth is NOT EXPANDING and my opponent has, thus far, NOT been able to give a piece of unrefuted evidence!
Debate Round No. 1
Akhenaten

Pro

I will prove my theory is correct by proving that continental drift is incorrect. Thus, this will leave my opponent with nothing left to hold on to and then he must concede defeat on this matter.

https://www.youtube.com...

This video shows that Alfred Wergener's theory of continental drift is based on false data and that the rock ages have been falsely presented. We can see from the video that the land mass that joins North America to South America has been deleted from Wergener's models of the early Earth. Thus, his theory is bogus nonsense.

The concept of the Earth having one large land mass which broke up into smaller land masses is childish and doesn't comply with many laws of physics and mathematics.
1. One land mass would make the Earth unstable.
2. It is mathematically impossible that an early Earth have only one land mass because it defies the laws of probability. The mathematical laws of statistics and probability prohibit such a formation to occur. The odds would be so large for such a thing to occur that the universe isn't big enough for that number to fit into it.

Whereas, the theory of Earth expansion is logical and fits the evidence perfectly. My opponent keeps ignoring the evidence. Evidence is very inconvenient to him, so he ignores it and hopes that it will go away. But, I am sorry opponent. The evidence won't go away and will keep coming back to haunt you into your grave.

The fact that most of the major fault lines occur in the middle of the world's oceans should be evidence enough to prove that Earth expansion is true. There may be a little bit of subduction on some coast lines in America. But this is not typical and is relatively rare phenomenon when considering the globe as a whole. Take Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Arctic, Green land, West coast of America, China, Russia, England and Ireland. No subduction!!!!!

Thus, the continental drift theory is inconsistent and illogical. Why persist with an illogical theory when a logical and rational theory is available?
atjacobmajor

Con

Thank you for that intriguing argument, Pro :)

1. My opponent still has not even TRIED to debunk my claims on 'where matter comes from.' Although I hope he eventually does at least attempt to seal this major hole in his argument, we can assume he has no rebuttal for it. In the mean time however, Pro has provided us a link to a video from a... not so credible source. A nameless YouTube channel with 10 subscribers. Assuming however that all the information in this video is correct, which is a plausible statement... it is still very debunk-able. First of all, the maps used are EXTREMLY crude and HANDRAWN! This is based on Wegner's original theory which is still correct, however because of a lack of capital and technology, Wegner was never able to create a map of Pangea comparable to those we have today. Here is a very detailed map: (http://eatrio.net...) If you didn't know, most of Central America is on it's own plate, the Caribbean plate. If you look on this map, it simply moves to the side of the map. Also, the so called "rock data" means nothing, as rock age and plates have no real connection between each other. The video you linked was using very basic and therefore inaccurate maps.

2. Here my opponent states that Pangea would make Earth very 'unstable.' Pro is not at all clear in what way this makes Earth unstable, how it makes Earth unstable, and how he can prove this. If you mean that earth is unstable becuase of it's shape... well that's simply ridiculous. Earth can't 'tip over,' if there is no gravity. My opponent also states that that it is "It is mathematically impossible that an early Earth have only one land mass because it defies the laws of probability" and this is false for many reasons. First of all, because there ISN'T just one land mass... it is many. There are eight major plates with many more minor and mini plates. Also, how would this be so improbable? You provide no reasoning on how or why it would be improbable, you just say that it is.

3. "The fact that most of the major fault lines occur in the middle of the world's oceans should be evidence enough to prove that Earth expansion is true. There may be a little bit of subduction on some coast lines in America. But this is not typical and is relatively rare phenomenon when considering the globe as a whole. Take Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Arctic, Green land, West coast of America, China, Russia, England and Ireland. No subduction!!!!!" I noticed you have said several times that there is 'no subduction', however you have never provided a credible source for this, LET ALONE even explain it!

4. "Thus, the continental drift theory is inconsistent and illogical. Why persist with an illogical theory when a logical and rational theory is available?" I'm not sure logical and rational is the right word. My opponent often ignores many of my questions and rebuttals, usually coming back with the same rebuttal that i have debunked several times. My opponent puts this perfectly, it's almost as if they were pretending to be me: "My opponent keeps ignoring the evidence. Evidence is very inconvenient to him, so he ignores it and hopes that it will go away. But, I am sorry opponent. The evidence won't go away and will keep coming back to haunt you into your grave." Keep in mind my opponent has not yet tackled my question, WHERE DOES ALL THE MASS COME FROM?
Debate Round No. 2
Akhenaten

Pro

First of all - Lets check out my opponents avatar and history profile page. Hmmmmm?????????
He is a 19 year old who is 14 years of age and finished school in 2012. Really!!!!!!!
Clearly, my opponent is a congenital liar and can't be trusted.
Now, did my opponent create 2 avatars and vote for himself in the last debate on this issue?
Answer - Most likely. lol

But, lets ignore all those negative possibilities and pretend that my opponent is genuine and is not a liar and is not a cheat. lol

1. I have already explained where matter comes from but you didn't believe it. That's your problem, not mine. Being a 14 year old, you haven't done enough reading and research and have only had enough time to digest the garbage that the education system has fed into your brain. You need about another 50 years of thinking time to get to my level of understanding of the universe. The source of information is irrelevant. Its whether the information is correct or not that matters most. My sources are all correct, while your sources are all incorrect.

My opponent has agreed that Alfred Wergener's drawing are very shonky and not worthy as displaying as evidence. Thank's opponent. You have just discredited your own evidence. Thus, the plate tectonic theory is unworthy.

Detailed map of Pangaea. - The ancient river systems don't match the Pangaea model. Rivers are flowing to nowhere. It just doesn't make sense. Now, if you wrap Pangaea onto a smaller globe, it will fit perfectly. Now, that makes sense!!!!!

2. Earth unstable - Proof - If you get a sphere on a string and spin it around. No problem. Now, you add a piece of chewing gum to one side of the sphere and spin it again. Now, observe - sphere is unstable and wobbles. With all the land on one side of a spinning globe there would be no regular day and night pattern. Thus, life would not be able to evolve. Let's face it, the Pangaea Earth model is full of inconsistencies and errors.

3.The scientists that support the expanding globe theory are many. Nobel Prize winner Professor Carey who has written a book regarding this subject. - Theories of the Earth and Universe - A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences.

http://www.dinox.org...

Note - Pluto's moon has been recently found to be expanding.

4. Expansion direction lines run from the central fault lines in the middle of the ocean and run directly to the coast. Plates do not move all the time. The flat and smooth appearance of new and recent magma fields near the central fault ridges reveals that this is further evidence of expansion.

5. Earth animal sizes have reduced in the exact proportion according to specific gravity and Earth size.

http://www.dinosaurhome.com...
atjacobmajor

Con

Before I start my rebuttal, I would like to address the topic of my opponent REPORTING votes on our last argument. These votes were completely viable, and my opponent most lily reported these because he didn't want to lose. This is a breach of conduct so bad, it's almost crazy.

0. MY PROFILE:

My opponent checked my profile and calls me a liar because I put my age down as 19, and say I'm 14. This was an error, I accidently put the wrong age and cannot change it. You also say that I said that I graduated school in 2012? I never put that once on my profile. I said I WILL be graduating in 2021! Because of these two things, one being a simple mistake, and the other being simply false, my opponent says that I am a liar and cannot be trusted. He then goes on to accuse me of creating two other profiles for the sake of winning votes is really... preposterous. These are both highly active profiles that have different views, religions, and debates than me. The idea that I have three active profiles with different backstories, music and movie tastes, political views, and organizations is really silly honestly. NOW LET'S RETURN THE FAVOR AND CHECK OUT MY OPPONENTS PROFILE. Out of 59 debates my opponent has not won a single one... my opponent also thinks that he is the 'only honest' debater on this website because he has not won a single debate. If my opponent cannot win a debate, does that make him and his sources and arguments very trustable? Does reporting votes to win make him even more trustable?

1a. Yes it is true you have already explained where this matter would come from, HOWEVER that is irrelevant because I already debunked it. What I am asking for is an argument that I cannot debunk, which so far you have not even cam close to delivering.

1b. You then go on to start saying that, because of my age, what I say is irrelevant. Quite silly, indeed, especially since I have been winning against you for the past several arguments. I am not trying to be rude here, I am just saying that saying that whatever I say cannot be credited is simply because of my age is rude, predatory, and just plain silly.

1c. "The source of information is irrelevant. Its whether the information is correct or not that matters most. My sources are all correct, while your sources are all incorrect." Actually, the source is very important. Sources are supposed to provide facts to support your arguments, not to say your arguments for you. Thus, if a source gives just purely facts, and has a history of incorrect facts, or is on a platform where literally ANYBODY can upload, whilst not having a significant following, it can be discredited. This is especially a problem for you, because your sources often state your arguments, whilst also being not very credible. In the rare case that you do have a reasonable and credible source, it often has almost nothing to do with your argument.

1d. "My opponent has agreed that Alfred Wergener's drawing are very shonky and not worthy as displaying as evidence. Thank's opponent. You have just discredited your own evidence. Thus, the plate tectonic theory is unworthy." I was saying that Wegner's drawings are not to be credited as an exact source. Because the work of one century old scientist is not exist, it doesn't mean I am discrediting the entire theory. I am just floe saying that such broad drawings cannot be used to argue such a specific thing.

1e. "Detailed map of Pangaea. - The ancient river systems don't match the Pangaea model. Rivers are flowing to nowhere. It just doesn't make sense. Now, if you wrap Pangaea onto a smaller globe, it will fit perfectly. Now, that makes sense!!!!!" As detailed as this map is, we cannot really know the exact flow of these rivers, because over millions and millions of years, these things change. Also, rivers really don't flow to 'nowhere'? could you please give me an example because I see nothing. Also, if you wrap Pangea around a smaller globe, the rivers would literally have nowhere to lead. You provide ne real argument on WHY it would fit more perfectly there.

2. "Earth unstable - Proof - If you get a sphere on a string and spin it around. No problem. Now, you add a piece of chewing gum to one side of the sphere and spin it again. Now, observe - sphere is unstable and wobbles. With all the land on one side of a spinning globe there would be no regular day and night pattern. Thus, life would not be able to evolve. Let's face it, the Pangaea Earth model is full of inconsistencies and errors". This is because of gravity. There is no 'direction' in space, there for it wouldn't be wobbling. The reason why something might wobble is because one side might be heavier than the other, giving more pull towards the Earth.

3a. You fail to explain how this supports your theory, and don't provide a link to why it might. This book is also extremely old, from 1988, which makes it unexposed to lots of new evidence gathered within the past 30 years. Also, I checked and there is no 'Carey' under a list of all Nobel prize winners. Check for your self (Control F, 'Carey' : https://en.wikipedia.org...)

3b. You also credit a source, which literally just discuss the things I have already debunked in past arguments... Also, your source barley talks about, let along gives evidence for Pluto expanding. According to my own research, Pluto has never been said to be expanding... This appears to be a misunderstanding of the observation that Pluto's ATMOSPHERE has been expanding! (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

4. What? How does this disprove seafloor spreading?

5. Once again, your source gives your argument for you, not evidence. It is fine if you would AGREE with the page, however you do not even state your claim, just link to a website. The website seems quite credible, however the main argument in this article is that gravity increased, causing the big organisms on Earth to die off. The argument linked is too big and detailed to debate here, but it is not related to your theory. And because the claim rests on the increase of gravity, and your explanation of gravity is different than the source cited on the website, you must first explain (without being debunked) how the gravity increased. This source is not a viable argument, because you have not debunked my theory, and my theory is still viable.
Debate Round No. 3
Akhenaten

Pro

The reason that I have not won a debate on this website is because this website is a fractal of the real world. This website is corrupt and evil and is controlled by biased, corrupt and evil persons. The mainstream physics world is all about preserving old redundant theories that should have past away over a century ago. The education system supports these old redundant theories and brainwashes young children with these theories. The science world is a world where complication is considered as a virtue and is a prized possession of the science elite. In order to preserve there high status and high income, scientists must preserve the mystique of complication and difficulty. Thus, a simple universe is undesirable and must be hidden from the general public. Thus, all the theories that I am challenging on this website are simplifications of how nature really works which is far less complicated than we are told by the science elite.

Now, back to the debate.

Animal size and gravity.
My opponent doesn't accept the evidence that I have supplied. Reason - "The article is too big and detailed and doesn't relate to my theory."

This is a pathetic response. Now I am supplying TOO MUCH information. Before he complained that I wasn't showing enough information. Thus, we can plainly see that my opponent is playing political gamesmanship of never being satisfied regardless of what evidence that I supply.
Doesn't relate to my theory?
The article doses explain how gravity increased.
Its simply a matter of a light beam creating a positron and electron pair.

https://www.sciencealert.com...

This confirms my theory that left and right spin particles come together to make matter. E=MC2
Thus, the speed of light squared equals matter. Two particles of aether which are spinning at the speed of light are pushed together to create one neutron. A neutron is a small black hole which the positron and the electron rotate around. Thus we have the first atomic particle which is the hydrogen atom. This is why hydrogen is the most common element because its the first element to be created and makes the foundation for larger atoms to form.

See video below for a complete analysis of all the data regarding expanding Earth .

https://www.youtube.com...
atjacobmajor

Con

"I'm right and they're wrong that's why I lost they're all brainwashed" is a very delusional, Alex-Jonesy excuse. Kind of ridiculous.

1a. The article you supplied ISN'T too long and IS related! I was talking about how the theory that gravity is increasing is totally unrelated to yours. I am saying that, without evidence that my proposed theory is WRONG and without evidence that your theory is RIGHT this is a useless argument. I can not debate that article because it is BASED ON YOUR THEORY. To debunk it I must DEBUNK YOUR THEORY, which, at this point, I have already done. On top of that, the article does not combat my theory, but rather provides and alternate one. Again, in order to debunk it, I must debunk the theory behind it, which I have done, if you do not pose new arguments.

1b. Wait wait, you are SUPPORTING that theory? I thought your theory was that gravity increased BECUASE OF THE EARTH INCREASING IN SIZE. Please, make up your mind.

2. I'm sorry, but you are still not clear on what your theory is. You never provided any evidence and proof on WHY this works! Please, do, I'm interested.

3. I'm not going to deconstruct ANOTHER VIDEO on what I have already debated, and most importantly, once again, I AM DEBATING YOU NOT YOUTUBE!
Debate Round No. 4
Akhenaten

Pro

1. My opponent hasn't supplied any refutation to the animal sizes are diminishing with gravity increase evidence. This evidence is irrefutable.

2. My opponent hasn't supplied any evidence that shows why India traveled 6,000 kms north while the other continents didn't move much at all. Thus, I have proven that his pet theory of continental drift is faulty.

3. The present day continents don't fit together in the plate tectonic model because the Earth has expanded and crumpled the edges and some central areas of the continents. This crumpling effect has been proven through the use of expanding Earth models. If you try to put the continents back together on the present day Earth size they won't fit. This is because the size and shape of the Earth has changed into a larger size. When you increase the size of a globe, the outer skin will crumple. This is what has caused most of the worlds mountain range formations to occur. When the plate tectonic theory was formulated they didn't have any detailed oceanographic photos to work with. Thus, they didn't know that the central ridges existed in the middle of all the major oceans. They didn't know that the rocks in the middle of the ocean were smoother and younger than the rocks near the coastal regions. Put all this information together and you have the expanding Earth Theory Model which is far more logical and evidence based than the old redundant and illogical continental drift and subduction theories. There may be a little subduction but the expansion is far greater and out paces any minor subduction.

4. The video that I supplied of which my opponent was too lazy to watch, contains evidence which easily disproves the continental drift theory. It reveals that there has been a conspiracy of silence in regards to the expanding Earth Theory because it would involve reassessing many theories of physics. It has been found using satellite measurements that the Earth expands by 18 mm per year. This in formation has been withheld from the public because it contradicts many of the old physics theories of Einstein about the existence of an aether.

5. http://www.jamesmaxlow.com...

Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to
routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to subcentimetre
accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were
established to form a global network, it was found that the global excess in radius was 18
mm/year " i.e. they found that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year. This value was
considered to be "extremely high" when compared to expected deglaciation rates during
melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact
"expected that most " stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went
on to recommend that the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to
the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now
reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions
are effectively constrained to zero.

Thus, we can see that the science community manipulates real data to suit their agenda. The science community doesn't want an expanding Earth because it upsets too many apple carts; so they hide data using scientific fraud and jargon like normalization process and constrained to zero etc.

6. My opponent failed to refute my argument that an Earth with just one continent is a statistical and probability impossibility. Logic dictates that such a planet could not exist because the laws of mathematics and commonsense wouldn't allow it to occur. Only childish or ill informed people could believe or imagine that a planet could form with just one large continent and just one large ocean. Its really laughable when you think about it long enough. lol
atjacobmajor

Con

Before I start my debate, I would like to state how much of a pleasure it has been debating you in this subject. Although I do not appreciate reporting votes on our last debate, I would still like wish one thing: let the best debater win!

1. Quite the opposite, I said that you haven't provided any evidence against my theory. Providing an alternate theory doesn't count.

2. I have, actually. It is because India is on it's own plate and it is much smaller than several larger continental plates you might think of. I don't see how you have proven anything.

3. How does a think crumple when it gets bigger? This makes no sense. You also have forgotten the biggest point, and besides my numerous reminders, in fact you have hardly even discussed the subject.

4. I wasn't "too lazy to watch," YOU were too lazy to debate the subjects yourself, and instead of using the video as evidence, you used it as your argument. If I wanted to debate the video I would have stuck tot the YouTube comment section. Also, may I question where this satellite data came from? And no, I don't mean the video, but where and who this information was published by.

5. The article you linked has no link to where this data comes from, on top of that using THIRTYYEAR OLD TECHNOLOGY it is extremely easy to make small two centimeter mistakes. Also, building settling can easily explain why the entire system measured TWO CENTIMETERS in THIRTY YEARS. Such a small increase.

6. Again, it is not just one continent. It is MANY plates. Therefor it is A LOT less improbable than the theory that EARTH IS EXPANDING, which rests on the idea that MAYTTER CAN COME FROM NOWHERE, which my opponent has consistently ignored, DESPITE MY NUMEROUS REMINDERS.

- Again, I wish my opponent luck :) may the best debater win!
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KostasT.1526// Mod action: Removed<

6 point to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: 3. Pro implied that Con is lying about their account info and that they have another account, via which they voted on the previous debate, all these being baseless assumptions, while Con accused Pro of not being trustable based on facts 6. Con cited many authoritative sources to support every point requiring these, whilst Pro's sources were few and either not trustworthy (youtube) or indirectly related to their arguments, as Con pointed out 5. Since Pro is opposing the commonly accepted ideas, the BoP was on them, but was not fulfilled. Their arguments were based on assumptions or not credible sources and were all debunked by Con (examples: India's plate motion [debunked], animal sizes [alternative explanation], continents not fitting together [d.], Pangea impossibility and instability [d.], expansion measurements [a. e.]; these were the final arguments of Pro), while Pro did not explain the mysteriously appearing mass (the previous explanation has been debunked).

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more to assess the reliability of presented sources than simply say that they are "authoritative" or "indirectly related to their arguments". It must be clear where the strengths and weaknesses of these sources lie " generalizing this much is not sufficient. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. Merely providing the taglines of arguments presented by Pro and claiming that Con addressed them in certain ways is not enough. The voter must at least dig down into one of these examples and show how Con defeated the argument.
************************************************************************
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
Akhenaten
Little boy has voted again. I wonder if he is out of his nappies yet? lol
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
Akhenaten
They are starting to catch up to my theory. lol

https://phys.org...
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
Akhenaten
New research has probed an even more mind-bending possibility: that spacetime has dimensions that change depending on the scale, and the dimensions could have fractal properties on small scales. In a recent study, Dario Benedetti, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, has investigated two possible examples of spacetime with scale-dependent dimensions deviating from classical values at short scales. More than being just an interesting idea, this phenomenon might provide insight into a quantum theory of relativity, which also has been suggested to have scale-dependent dimensions. Benedetti"s study is published in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

Read more at: https://phys.org...
Posted by KostasT.1526 3 months ago
KostasT.1526
@Akhenaten
What I am trying to point out is that the properties you ascribe to fractals are wrong, not the fact that they can be detected everywhere.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
Akhenaten
If you look at a 3D picture of the universe using the latest information. Then, you will notice that the universe is divided into cell like shapes and looks overall like a picture of brain tissue.

http://en.webfail.com...
Posted by KostasT.1526 3 months ago
KostasT.1526
@Akhenaten
You ascribe too much significance to fractals. I have told you again, "fractals can be seen anywhere in the macroscopic universe because they are the more efficient way for matter to "flow" through the vacuum of space, under the pull of a high concentration of mass. I do agree that matter tends to spin, from microscopic to macroscopic level". But fractals creating time, spin speed, size barriers and so on is just your assumption.
Furthermore, an atom is to us a blur of activity and motion because its electrons move around in a wave-like way, forming an area inside of which they can be detected, but we are unable to measure both their position and momentum precisely and thus we can only have an unclear idea of where they are.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
Akhenaten
The universe is divided into fractals. Fractals create time, speed of spin, and size barriers. This is why an atom to us is just a blur of motion and activity. Just imagine a galaxy spinning around at the speed of light. That's an atom.

http://www.fractaluniverse.org...
Posted by KostasT.1526 3 months ago
KostasT.1526
@Akhenaten
I kind of lost you at "An atom is a fractal of galaxy". Would you mind explaining a bit more?
Furthermore, I presented some points that go wrong with your theory. If you want to confirm it, you will have to provide a sufficient explanation.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 months ago
Akhenaten
The universe is constructed of fractals. An atom is a fractal of galaxy. Thus, an atom will contain a black hole. There is nothing to hold an atom together other than a black hole. Therefore, atoms must contain black holes. Its just a matter of basic logic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.