Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28

# Fractal Universe.

 Posts: 2,862 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2010 3:47:06 PMPosted: 7 years agoA fractal is "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is a reduced-size copy of the whole,"[1] a property called self-similarity.We humans are always in search of proportion. How big are we? How big is the universe? Am I tiny and insignificant? Or am I giant?There is a chance that the universe is simply a fractal. We are on one level. There are many (if not infinite) levels above and below us. We live on a particle floating around a bigger particle. We are made of smaller particles (molecules) that are made of particles that are small particles floating around bigger particles (atoms). It is quite easy to see the redundancy in the universe. It would not surprise me if we were just floating on some level of a fractal. Indeed that very well may be so.The universe is self similar.
 Posts: 9,513 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2010 3:50:25 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 12/18/2010 3:47:06 PM, Rockylightning wrote:A fractal is "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is a reduced-size copy of the whole,"[1] a property called self-similarity.We humans are always in search of proportion. How big are we? How big is the universe? Am I tiny and insignificant? Or am I giant?There is a chance that the universe is simply a fractal. We are on one level. There are many (if not infinite) levels above and below us. We live on a particle floating around a bigger particle. We are made of smaller particles (molecules) that are made of particles that are small particles floating around bigger particles (atoms). It is quite easy to see the redundancy in the universe. It would not surprise me if we were just floating on some level of a fractal. Indeed that very well may be so.The universe is self similar.There's some weird sh*t I came across doing research one day. It's like, if you look at a brain cell, and look at "the universe", the two look strikingly similar. Kind of cool.
 Posts: 21,874 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2010 5:34:22 PMPosted: 7 years agoWhen I was twelve I same up with the hypothesis that the smallest particle is the universe, that it is infinitely contained within itself.THE CHOSEN ONE THE GRAND POOBAH OF DDO THE BOOGIE MAN THE REAL LIFE SANTA CLAUSE THE PARADOXICAL ZEBRA PRANCING THROUGH THE GRASSY PLANES YOUR COGNITIVE EXPERIENCE THE REINCARNATION OF THE DEAD DREAMS OF HUMANITY THE DISH WHO RAN AWAY WITH THE SPOON Your friend.
 Posts: 2,173 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2010 9:12:10 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 12/18/2010 5:34:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:a personal anecdote that sounded deep*mind explodes*Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
 Posts: 2,862 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2010 1:24:00 AMPosted: 7 years agothat does look the same...wow
 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2010 8:17:06 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 12/18/2010 3:47:06 PM, Rockylightning wrote:A fractal is "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is a reduced-size copy of the whole,"[1] a property called self-similarity.We humans are always in search of proportion. How big are we? How big is the universe? Am I tiny and insignificant? Or am I giant?There is a chance that the universe is simply a fractal. We are on one level. There are many (if not infinite) levels above and below us. We live on a particle floating around a bigger particle. We are made of smaller particles (molecules) that are made of particles that are small particles floating around bigger particles (atoms). It is quite easy to see the redundancy in the universe. It would not surprise me if we were just floating on some level of a fractal. Indeed that very well may be so.The universe is self similar.Science has proven this, to an extent. According to physics, Euclidean mathematics, and topography, each "level" that you referred to bears the nomenclature "dimension" and becomes exponentially more complex, though analogous, with each rising level.Rather than mirroring one another, each rests within the constraints of the higher, more complex manifestation of itself, by conforming to the shapes dictated by each dimension. In other words, a 2-manifold object is a single surface that aligns with 3-dimensional space. There is no such thing as a 1-manifold object, because it effectively translates as an edge, which is a much simpler expression of a surface and conforms to that surface's spacial expression. Accordingly, a 3-manifold object curves into a 4-dimensional space as a simpler expression of that higher dimension. This can potentially continue indefinitely, but that remains unknown. The fact is, though, that according to Euclidean mathematics and topography, it must continue forever, since each lower dimension must rest within a space that is complex enough to contain for it to exist. So, logically, it follows, and theoretically, it stands. In mathematics, higher dimensions are accepted all the time, as each respective variable as they apply to each higher dimension is conclusively applied to this equation: http://en.wikipedia.org....I think we've gotten no farther than 5.
 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2010 8:23:16 AMPosted: 7 years ago...but, as far as a general structure that appears across all proportions, that should be somewhat obvious, given the same principles and general interactions apply. It isn't quite the shape and expression of energy that varies, but more, the interaction between matter and energy at the quantum level that lacks continuity. For example, although an electron is clearly a particle of light, it moves at a speed considerably slower than what's regarded as "the speed of light."
 Posts: 2,862 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2010 11:21:52 AMPosted: 7 years ago@renwhy are electrons considered light?
 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2010 11:15:57 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 12/19/2010 11:21:52 AM, Rockylightning wrote:@renwhy are electrons considered light?Well......technically, they are an elementary particle of matter, much like photons, which are elementary particles of matter as well, and which comprise light. I guess it was just easier to say that they're basically synonymous with light, but they behave slightly differently. Formost, rather than existing in corresponding packets in the way that photons do, electrons actually exist so independently that no two electrons can be in the same quantum state at the same time. Another obvious example is that explained above--electrons do not move at the speed of light. However, for the most part, they act the same and play similar roles, such as exhibiting particle-wave dualities and contributing to electromagnetic interactions. In fact, we often use one to exhibit the other--we use light bulbs to create encased electromagnetic arcs--or, electrons that "jump" from one point in the filament to the other, releasing an explosion of photons to illuminate a room.What I explained was an over-simplified summary and I guess that isn't fair. The reality is that they are two different subatomic particles, but their primary differences are in the role that they play, rather than their application to matter and reality. An electron could not move at the speed of light because it travels within such a small area. Therefore, by design, they would effectively cease to exist, because they would not remain in any one place for long enough to interact with other sources of energy.I was pretty much using that to explain how everything has continuity, but that degree of continuity varies by proportion.
 Posts: 751 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/20/2010 10:53:20 AMPosted: 7 years ago...technically, they are an elementary particle of matter, much like photons, which are elementary particles of matter as well, and which comprise light. I guess it was just easier to say that they're basically synonymous with light, but they behave slightly differently.They are both elementary particles of matter and both exhibit the wave-particle duality. There is no logical justification for taking those few similarities and then saying that electrons are basically synonymous with light because it isn't.However, for the most part, they act the same and play similar roles, such as exhibiting particle-wave dualities and contributing to electromagnetic interactions.Actually, photons, being the guage bosons of electromagnetic force, are the source of all electromagnetic interaction. The force is generally carried between electrons by photons, but photons are the sole keepers of electromagnetic interaction if you wanted to correctly state the above.What I explained was an over-simplified summary and I guess that isn't fair.Well it wasn't fair because it really isn't really true.The reality is that they are two different subatomic particles, but their primary differences are in the role that they play, rather than their application to matter and reality.Their primary difference is in almost every aspect except the most generic terms of modeling their behavior.An electron could not move at the speed of light because it travels within such a small area. Therefore, by design, they would effectively cease to exist, because they would not remain in any one place for long enough to interact with other sources of energy.The area within which something moves places no limit on its max velocity. Something could easily go very fast while going in a very, very small circle.An electron can't move at the speed of light because it has mass and therefore under relativity would require infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.
 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/20/2010 1:50:20 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 12/20/2010 10:53:20 AM, Floid wrote:They are both elementary particles of matter and both exhibit the wave-particle duality. There is no logical justification for taking those few similarities and then saying that electrons are basically synonymous with light because it isn't.Within the context of which I was discussing them, it was completely accurate.Actually, photons, being the guage bosons of electromagnetic force, are the source of all electromagnetic interaction. The force is generally carried between electrons by photons, but photons are the sole keepers of electromagnetic interaction if you wanted to correctly state the above.Well, genius, that's not entirely true, since we're being so pedantic. Photons are not the source of electromagnetic interaction, they are the sole carriers of electromagnetic force. As I explained, both photons and electrons are the source of electromagnetic interactions. In fact, just as gravity is distinct from matter, but would not exist without it (because it upon what the force of gravity acts), electromagnetism would not exist without electrons.Well it wasn't fair because it really isn't really true.An oversimplified version, for all intents and purposes, is never true, but rather, more germane and easier for the speaker. I am not a physics professor, but I do agree that I shouldn't have people calling them the same thing.Their primary difference is in almost every aspect except the most generic terms of modeling their behavior.Well... yeah, again, that's what an oversimplification is. Let me ask you something--given my explanation, what was the purpose of this post?The area within which something moves places no limit on its max velocity.What? First of all, everything moving in a circle is moving at a velocity of 0. Second, everything has a terminal velocity, after which it begins to disintegrate. That isn't the same as it's max velocity, which is the velocity at which it attains naturally. However, none of this applies to my explanation of the activity of an electron. It is necessary to explain it in that way, because electrons are illuminated and emit photons, but does not travel as fast as they do. Photons do not move in a circle.Something could easily go very fast while going in a very, very small circle.Yeah? Like, how fast?An electron can't move at the speed of light because it has mass and therefore under relativity would require infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.I think CERN disagrees. They've gotten close enough to make you sound foolish, anyway.
 Posts: 751 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/22/2010 7:44:32 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 12/21/2010 11:19:53 PM, Ren wrote:At 12/21/2010 8:02:20 AM, Floid wrote:Saying "For example, although an electron is clearly a particle of light" is never an accurate statement in any context.I don't think that it's a statement specific enough to be that conclusively inaccurate. The fact is that photons emanate from electrons, so, as an oversimplification within context, it applies.Yeah, and diamonds are made of iron. They aren't you say? Well diamonds are made of carbon atoms and iron is a type of atom, so in the context in which I made that statement, it isn't inaccurate to say diamonds are made of iron.Do you see how rediculous what you are suggesting sounds?The rest of the discussion is pretty pointless. If you really think that the velocity of something going in a circle is zero then any discussion of science with you is futile because there is no basis for communicating ideas.
 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/22/2010 9:36:23 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 12/22/2010 7:44:32 AM, Floid wrote:At 12/21/2010 11:19:53 PM, Ren wrote:At 12/21/2010 8:02:20 AM, Floid wrote:Saying "For example, although an electron is clearly a particle of light" is never an accurate statement in any context.I don't think that it's a statement specific enough to be that conclusively inaccurate. The fact is that photons emanate from electrons, so, as an oversimplification within context, it applies.Yeah, and diamonds are made of iron. They aren't you say? Well diamonds are made of carbon atoms and iron is a type of atom, so in the context in which I made that statement, it isn't inaccurate to say diamonds are made of iron.Are you meaning to tell me that iron releases carbon?Do you see how rediculous what you are suggesting sounds?The rest of the discussion is pretty pointless. If you really think that the velocity of something going in a circle is zero then any discussion of science with you is futile because there is no basis for communicating ideas."Because the radius of the circle is constant, the radial component of the velocity is zero."http://en.wikipedia.org...I even explained it to you mathematically.For shame, Floid. For shame. Thou shalt never cause thy pride to get in the way of thy reasoning.