Welcome to Fractal Forums

The (Observable) Universe
The currently best simulation of how it evolved from the big bang to now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY0bKE10ZDM

nice video, especially that they try to figure out the mysterious "black matter"

beside of that, who has recently posted the "black (w)hole" theory video ? wasnt that you ? i watched it, and it contained a tremendous view and a try to solve the "world formula" ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW1gl6_QK-M

it comes to the conclusion that ... our universe acts as a black hole from the outside, he explains it that a light ray would not be able to leave our universe as well, due to massive gravitational forces inside

and following that view he comes to the point that black holes rather do not just suck material, but that they output material as well, in a toroidal fashion, e.g. in the center of the black wholes stars emerge, after a while they become moved to the outside and move upwards and become then sucked in to the black hole again

and following this thought he comes to the conclusion that we rather live in a world of at least multiple big bangs ;) i found it a very interesting view of universe and matter!

Nope, that was most definitely not me.

that would be me then..
and I'm really surprised, as you are the second guy (that I think is a mathematician) who finds this equally fascinating and not just stupid, made up stuff with no scientific base..
did you encounter any large mathematical mistakes?  (Besides his far out pyramid..-theories)
As said elsewhere, I couldn't find any acknowledged scientists debunking Haramein, they only said "we won't even look through your telescope" like to Galileo..

(sorry kram for napping this thread.. but then again this it might stay on top loner and more will see the universe unfold :)

@chillheimer ayh, sorry you was it ;)

i am certainly not a mathematician, but a base mathematical university foundation i have ;) and i know about the large<->small problem of the world formula, so, i found his way of argumenting it very cool, he drifts slightly into mythology at the end ;) but he described various techniques, and the way of formulating our universe behaving as a black hole is not really wrong, and furthermore, the layout of the galaxys ( in a plane rather than a ball ) support ist toroidal wordlview, and i really like the idea that black holes are birthplaces rather than death places, especially when you know that the biggest stars are found around the center of a galaxy, so, at least it should be considered, that mass is created rather than eaten, as far as i understand low mass particles near a black hole would drift more or less straight into the black hole, so, how can dust clouds exists so near to such a gravitational source ???

i think it was a really nice point of view that was formulated nicely!

and furthermore, i almost forgot to mention that i really do not like the string theory crap, chaos theory tells us that simple rules are what makes the world go round ;)
and string theory might offer a solution, but it is a strictly theoretical construct, with no evidence to real life, they might argue that multi dimensions exist, as the ants
on a ball or on a string of wire, but it is not as delightful as einstein described his rather proven theories, the solution for the min<->max problem has to be something
so simple that no one discovered it before because it is more or less obvious ;) i might have a esoterical standpoint here, but string theory cant be the solution

or is string theory somehow proven for real life, or applied to something ?! if not i think it is pure crap, crap crap crap!!!

dark matter is another thing ... but ... i think it will resolve into void when the min<->max problem is resolved, in such an elegant way that it describes the smallest (atoms and below) things in the same way as it describes the big things (planets, suns and bigger ) if such a description is found, i really really believe that the problem with the dark matter (outer elements in galaxys move at the same speed like the ones closer to the center, which contradicts the ice-dancer empirism that closer radi need to have higher velocities) resolves with a more correct formulation of our world....

There is no evidence what so ever for that guy's ideas either. If he actually was onto something, if he had produced data based on his views which matched the universe remotely as well as our currently used theories, he would have been heard.

And comparing him with Gallileo is quite a huge stretch. He didn't point with a telescope and see those things. He just came up with this idea and that's that. Basically like String-Theorists did. Except that String-Theorists know full well that they haven't yet found the full picture: They rather develop new mathematical notions to eventually describe the universe than directly trying to describe the universe thus far. Falsifiability is an issue with it and they know it. They constantly seek for conclusions of their models that could actually be tested with current technology or with technology that could directly be developed by today's means.

The video above is not based on string-theory (it couldn't be: The concept, while it improves steadily, couldn't, yet, be turned into such a universe-simulation) but on the Standard Model, maaybe on SuSy which would add a Graviton amongst a lot of other things. Or maybe it's just the Standard Model plus a Graviton.
Not quite sure but most certainly it's not String- or M-Theory.

Harameins model is bases on the Rosenberg solutions to Einsteins equations with a spin term added. It is a well known and accepted solution which is just not very popular at the moment. The Schwarzchild radius is also well known.

Kram1032 your assertion that if a solution was correct it would be heard and its data accepted is not born out in practice. There is plenty of sociological evidence that science does not hold to its main principles in that regard!

The standard model is one of many competing models which of course means that there are rivalries that " twist" what the public is allowed to see and hear. The biggest fault any physicist can be accused of is bringing science into disrepute! Lol! ;D

Anybody who watches our entertainment media knows how it works! Just like politics and big business, and religion! You choose your camp and fight your corner.

The big bang theory essentially given credibility by Hawkins profound mathematical insights, not to detract from all other contributors to the inflation theory and black hole theory , has an increasing number of critics who have been marginalised by the system, but now form a vociferous majority!

Science and physics is changing , again! So watch that Space!

Math is just idealisation. Circles, triangles, fractals kind of don't exist.

My own take is that thee was no "beginning" and there will be no "end". Everything is, was and always will be - just changing in form.

Consider an infinite plasma state (as supposedly just after big bang but literally infinite) now consider that *condensing* i.s forming into patterns/globules and these themselves *shrinking* - this process working in a fractal manner *at all scales*.
Now consider - rather than the universe flying apart the receding of distant object is partly because they're moving but mostly because everything is still shrinking i.e. gaps may grow by movement but grow more relativistically to ourselves because of shrinkage (including ourselves) - however in proximate systems (e.g. a solar system and to a lesser extent galaxies and so on) the movement still holds objects together in opposition to the shrinkage so more local distances change less and relative shrinkage is maintained at the same rate as separation.

Just a completely different way of looking at it - gives a whole new perspective on why total mass calculations never match the theory.

Also all that happens and indeed all that exists is based on math in the form of fractal attractors in a system - and what we call "time" is merely state change (or iteration if you prefer) of that system.

If the idea of attractors is correct then of course it would mean that spatially disconnected objects could be linked (like cantor dust) - that does sound slightly familiar ;)