|
FractalWoman
Guest
|
 |
« on: April 21, 2010, 10:27:45 PM » |
|
Hello to all fractal freaks in the crowd. I am known as FractalWoman on the internet and on YouTube. I am a Fractal Cosmologist and believe that the universe is fractal AT ALL SCALES. I have been developing my own cosmology based on the Mandelbrot Set/Buddhabrot Set mathematical construct. I think you may find this interesting. You can find it here: http://www.butterflyeffect.ca/Close/Pages/Introduction.phpI'm excited to be a part of this forum and I hope I meet some interesting people along the way. Peace. FW |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sockratease
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2010, 10:38:47 PM » |
|
Hello and Welcome! I'll have to give your stuff a read later on when time allows, sounds interesting. A Fractal Cosmos has been proposed by a few different sources, and it's always fun to explore the possibilities  Glad to have you aboard... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components. The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out! |
|
|
|
cKleinhuis
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2010, 10:47:01 PM » |
|
hello and welcome to the forums, i think i stepped over your site some time ago
have fun!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
---
divide and conquer - iterate and rule - chaos is No random!
|
|
|
|
Nahee_Enterprises
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2010, 03:24:46 AM » |
|
Hello to all fractal freaks in the crowd. I am known as FractalWoman on the Internet and
on YouTube. I am a Fractal Cosmologist and believe that the universe is fractal AT ALL SCALES.
......
I'm excited to be a part of this forum and I hope I meet some interesting people along the way. Greetings, and Welcome to this particular Forum (again) !!!  There are definitely several "interesting people" that are Members. Hope they are what you are looking for. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
crotafang
Guest
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2010, 12:23:06 AM » |
|
Hello. (clicks on cosmology link) Looks very interesting. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phractal Phoam Phil
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2010, 07:21:14 PM » |
|
Welcome, Lori 
As one newbe to another, I'm glad to find another fractal cosmologist in the crowd. From your web address, I surmise that you're in Canada. I'm in western Washington. Maybe we're practically neighbors.
I do appreciate the beauty of the Mandelbrot set, but I don't see any similarity between it and E = mc². There are, of course, an infinite number of equally simple fractal formulas—any one of which could be the key to the universe. I hope you are still in school, so you can acquire the skills you will need to unlock the fractal secrets of the universe.
I'm afraid it's too late for me to learn anything new, but I'm just beginning to use what I have learned to create something new. I wish I could reduce my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes to a simple formula. Z = Z² + C is about all the math section of my feeble brain can handle. Well, actually, I'm okay at integral calculus, but what I need is for someone to invent a new branch of chaos theory.
My own fractal starts with expanding foam. That leads to a self-organizing random chaos. After about 60 orders of magnitude, it generates another expanding foam. Everything in between is our universe. If that can be reduced to a simple math formula, great!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 12:14:14 AM by Phractal Phoam Phil »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jehovajah
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2010, 11:40:21 AM » |
|
@phractal phoam Historical note:
In the early stages of developing my model, I thought the momentum imparted to blobs might stir up the ether, causing the blobs to migrate thru the foam. I thought blobs, themselves, were fundamental particles. I also thought some blobs caused fission and fusion of p-waves of specific energies. This might not be entirely wrong, so anyone seeking to improve upon the model might occasionally reexamine those bits of film from the cutting room floor.
Yes, a photon is an s-wave, and the ether is a solid. As James Clerk Maxwell said, over a century ago, if there is an ether, it must be a solid, because electromagnetic waves are transverse, and only a solid can be a medium for transverse waves. The term “solid” has nothing to do with lack of emptiness; if it did, there would be no such thing. Every solid is mostly empty space; sheer strength is what makes it solid. Even though each ether-foam bubble is mostly empty subspace, the tiny fraction that is filled with sub-universe matter has a tremendous amount of inertia. The waves that carry soooo much energy in our universe scarcely wiggle the sub-universe galaxies; the amplitude is probably a tiny fraction of a Planck length. Conceivably, a sub-universe galaxy might have as much inertial mass as the equivalent galaxy in our universe. One cubic meter of the ether foam might have a googol times more inertial mass than all the galaxies and dark matter in our known universe. The ether has no gravitational mass because it is the medium of gravity.
This is a Quote from your website. From it i learn one important thing which is that solid as a phase refers to a rigid lattice structure and not to an impenitrable mono substance. The phase changes that occur then relate to the dissolution of this lattice structure and the increasing improbability of any two given regions being associable by any linear rule. Those regions that do remain associable reflect a electrostatic /gravitational relationship that also inhere certain chemical and physical properties. However at even greater phase change conditions these associations become improbable and regions are involved in an electrostatic/gravitational plasma dynamic which may be amenable to gas law /thermodynamic principles. While these phase changes may seem random or chaotic i have ahunch that they are linked to what i call conic sectional curves/motion ands that general wave motion may be linked through conic sections to vorticular motions in general. Whereas i see no particular need for the term ether seeing it as congruent in every way with the term space i have no objection to it and recognise its historical significance and the information earlier scientists have encoded with it. So if i understand what you describe by it : our universe is a foam filled bubble within a foam filled super bubble? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
May a trochoid of ¥h¶h iteratively entrain your Logos Response transforming into iridescent fractals of orgasmic delight and joy, with kindness, peace and gratitude at all scales within your experience. I beg of you to enrich others as you have been enriched, in vorticose pulsations of extravagance!
|
|
|
|
Phractal Phoam Phil
Guest
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2010, 12:40:43 AM » |
|
I don't want to take over Lori's "Meet&Greet" thread to discuss my own model, so I have started my own "Let's collaborate on something!" thread entitled Fractal Foam Model of Universes. Any further discussion of my model should be taken there. I will respond, here, to one comment on my model. So if i understand what you describe by it : our universe is a foam filled bubble within a foam filled super bubble?
I prefer to believe that every universe in the scale-wise succession is infinite in spacial extent. Whether universes come and go in a finite time seems less certain. A bubble in our cosmic foam consists of a void, perhaps 10^24 meters across, surrounded by walls made of hundreds or thousands of galaxies. There are perhaps one million such bubbles within our observable universe (Hubble sphere) which is about 10^26 meters across. I think that hubble shpere is an infinitessimally small part of what I call our universe. A super-universe electron is about a trillion times wider than our Hubble sphere.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FractalWoman
Guest
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2010, 09:33:26 PM » |
|
but I don't see any similarity between it and E = mc² The purpose of my fractal cosmology is to demonstrate an "isomorphism" between the Mandelbrot set and black holes (and our universe). An isomorphism shows a relationship between the properties between two "objects" or systems. So I'm not saying that the Mandelbrot set is equal to a black hole but that there properties in one that match similar properties the another. So E = mc² means nothing to this isomorphism because the M-Set has no concept of mass per say. Another way of looking at it is, E = mc² really says that E = E. So I can talk about E in my model without talking about mass. In my model, the number of iterations is isomorphic to E. I hope you are still in school, so you can acquire the skills you will need to unlock the fractal secrets of the universe. I truly hope this wasn't meant as an insult. I had some horrible experiences in a physics forum where my "level of education" was questioned incessantly . I am almost 50. I have a university degree in computer science and have been working in a university research environment for 25 of those 50 years. Ten of those years I worked in the field of Astronomy. Currently, I build medical devices for cancer biopsy and treatment therapies. I have many papers and patents with my name on it. I spend most of the rest of my spare time studying physics, fractals and cosmology. This is fun for me but that doesn't mean that I don't take it very seriously. There are, of course, an infinite number of equally simple fractal formulas—any one of which could be the key to the universe. Yes, I agree, I have studied All the fractals, but non are as interesting than the Mandelbrot set. No other fractal can create the infinite variations that the Mandelbrot set is capable of. It is the most complex mathematical object in 2+ dimensions. In other words, z = z cubed + c is actually less complex than the lower order version. I have developed some of my own fractal patterns that seem to show a correlation between fractals and the way our universe works. It is my contention that space-time, matter, black holes and event horizons are all fractals. The space-time is expanding because it "dividing" which is equivalent to what you said about your fractal foam model: The space in our universe is expanding, and that is equivalent to our measures of distance shrinking,… When space-time divides, what is really happening is the measuring stick is shrinking. So the "universe" isn't really expanding (as you suggested) but it does kind of look that way from our perspective. Also, as the universe expands (or appears to expand), black holes are contracting which increase the gravitation effect, the warping of space-time around them. This is why black holes appear to get "heavier" as time goes on. This is not because they are "eating" and destroying matter however. I don't think that it is even possible for matter to breach the event horizon of a black hole. Black holes get "bigger" (smaller really) because space-time is dividing. Why? Because entropy demands it. Event horizons are also affected by space-time division. The event horizon is the "interface" between expansion and contraction. As space-time divides, event horizons "complexify" and so we have the complex shapes of the galaxies that we see today. In my model, a galaxy, the whole galaxy, is the event horizon of it's central black hole. |
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phractal Phoam Phil
Guest
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2010, 07:36:33 AM » |
|
The purpose of my fractal cosmology is to demonstrate an "isomorphism" between the Mandelbrot set and black holes (and our universe). An isomorphism shows a relationship between the properties between two "objects" or systems. So I'm not saying that the Mandelbrot set is equal to a black hole but that there properties in one that match similar properties the another. So E = mc² means nothing to this isomorphism because the M-Set has no concept of mass per say. Another way of looking at it is, E = mc² really says that E = E. So I can talk about E in my model without talking about mass. In my model, the number of iterations is isomorphic to E. Alright; you got me there. I’m no mathematician. In particular, number theory leaves me cold. I wish you luck proving this isomorphism. I truly hope this wasn't meant as an insult. I had some horrible experiences in a physics forum where my "level of education" was questioned incessantly . I am almost 50. I have a university degree in computer science and have been working in a university research environment for 25 of those 50 years. Ten of those years I worked in the field of Astronomy. Currently, I build medical devices for cancer biopsy and treatment therapies. I have many papers and patents with my name on it. I spend most of the rest of my spare time studying physics, fractals and cosmology. This is fun for me but that doesn't mean that I don't take it very seriously. I truly did not mean that as an insult. Like Einstein and Newton, I have Asperger syndrome, which prevents me from anticipating how my words might be interpreted on a personal level. I didn’t do well in school, and I’m too old now (64) to make a mark in the academic world, so I’m sowing my seeds of philosophy among those who might be destined to earn PhDs and Nobel prizes after I’m gone. Yes, I agree, I have studied All the fractals, but non are as interesting than the Mandelbrot set. No other fractal can create the infinite variations that the Mandelbrot set is capable of. It is the most complex mathematical object in 2+ dimensions. In other words, z = z cubed + c is actually less complex than the lower order version. Really!? All the fractals? You must have been at it for trillions of years! I’d be interested in seeing what happens with z = z^x + c where x is irrational. E.g., z = z^√2 + c. I have developed some of my own fractal patterns that seem to show a correlation between fractals and the way our universe works.
It is my contention that space-time, matter, black holes and event horizons are all fractals.... I would put it differently: particles, atoms, molecules, planets, solar systems, galaxies, cosmic foams, and even universes, are strange attractors within a single all encompassing fractal. I leave it to mathematicians to discover the numerical representation of that fractal. When space-time divides, what is really happening is the measuring stick is shrinking. So the "universe" isn't really expanding (as you suggested) but it does kind of look that way from our perspective. Also, as the universe expands (or appears to expand), black holes are contracting which increase the gravitation effect, the warping of space-time around them. This is why black holes appear to get "heavier" as time goes on. This is not because they are "eating" and destroying matter however. I don't think that it is even possible for matter to breach the event horizon of a black hole. Black holes get "bigger" (smaller really) because space-time is dividing. Why? Because entropy demands it. I think it’s irrelevant which is “really happening”. If you define distance in terms of the separation of two very distant galaxies, then we are shrinking, but it makes better sense from our perspective to define distance in terms of material things. I believe the present standard is the speed of light and the wavelength of a particular emission line. In my model, I speculate that a cubic meter contains a constant number of ether-foam bubbles (approximately 10^105 of them). As the number of bubbles increases, the new bubbles bleed out of objects and end up in the great voids.
Event horizons are also affected by space-time division. The event horizon is the "interface" between expansion and contraction. As space-time divides, event horizons "complexify" and so we have the complex shapes of the galaxies that we see today. In my model, a galaxy, the whole galaxy, is the event horizon of it's central black hole.
I don’t think astrophysicists use the term “event horizon” that loosely. The term is used in regard to black holes and the Hubble limit, but not to galaxies. When a black hole “eats” additional mass, that mass approaches the old event horizon but never crosses it; a new event horizon forms at a slightly greater radius, engulfing at least some of the new matter. The greater the mass, the larger the radius of the event horizon. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 06:01:26 PM by Phractal Phoam Phil, Reason: change color (my voice) »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FractalWoman
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2010, 04:12:10 PM » |
|
Like Einstein and Newton, I have Asperger syndrome, which prevents me from anticipating how my words might be interpreted on a personal level. Yes, I know several "Asperger's" and they do seem to have this "disconnect" from the personal perspective. You're lucky in many ways. Personal connections can cause alot of suffering so without that you can focus on your higher mind. Don't give up on being able to learn even at 64. I personally will never give up. Really!? All the fractals? You must have been at it for trillions of years! Wow, you really do have Asperger syndrome. Of course, what I really meant to say is that I have programmed, played around with and/or studied and most if not all of the "mainstream fractals" that one might find while researching fractals. I would put it differently: particles, atoms, molecules, planets, solar systems, galaxies, cosmic foams, and even universes, are strange attractors. This is in fact how I word it in webthesis: http://www.butterflyeffect.ca/Close/Pages/StrangeAttractors.htmlhttp://www.butterflyeffect.ca/Close/Pages/DarkMatter.htmland my crazy idea about DNA http://www.butterflyeffect.ca/Close/Pages/DNA.htmlI’d be interested in seeing what happens with z = z^x + c where x is irrational. E.g., z = z^√2 + c. Yes, this would be interesting, however I still think there's something special about the squared version. After we all, we do live in a universe that has inverse 'squared' laws and energy seems to be equal to mass times the speed of light 'squared'. Why squared and not cubed? That's my question. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phractal Phoam Phil
Guest
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2010, 05:56:06 PM » |
|
I’d be interested in seeing what happens with z = z^x + c where x is irrational. E.g., z = z^√2 + c. Yes, this would be interesting, however I still think there's something special about the squared version. After we all, we do live in a universe that has inverse 'squared' laws and energy seems to be equal to mass times the speed of light 'squared'. Why squared and not cubed? That's my question. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FractalWoman
Guest
|
|
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2010, 05:28:16 PM » |
|
The Mandelbrot construct (strange attractor) generates phenomenon very much like our universe. Gravity: http://www.butterflyeffect.ca/Close/Pages/Gravity.htmlRadiation: http://www.butterflyeffect.ca/Close/Pages/Radiation.htmlStars and Galaxies http://www.butterflyeffect.ca/Close/Pages/FullOfStars.htmlNot only that, but a 64-bit computer has a "planck limit" very similar to that of our universe at ~10 -33 http://www.butterflyeffect.ca/Close/Pages/Significant%20Digits.htmlSo, in my humble opinion, I believe that we do have computers that are perfectly capable of simulating our universe, at least in theory. Also, the current standard model of the universe requires many dozens of equations and dozens if not hundreds of parameters in order to model it correctly. It is my opinion (humble again) that the best unified model of the universe will be the result of ONE equation with NO parameters. All forces become emergent properties of this ONE equation or process (feedback loop). The Mandelbrot construct, meaning complex points (quaternions in 4D space) iterated through the function z = z squared + c, is a good example of what I see as the perfect "unified model" where just ONE equation/process with zero parameters generates a multitude of phenomenon (not unlike what we see in our universe). This is what I expect "the unified equation of our universe" to look like and how I expect it to behave. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fractex
Guest
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2010, 10:49:20 PM » |
|
Fractalwoman:
I've followed your inspirational work for quite some time.
The psychological desire for one unified theory or principle to explain everything appears to transcend scientific agendas. My guess is that it contributes to the religious impulse as well. The search for unity amongst the seemingly endless diversity of phenomena we perceive around us has certainly yielded amazing insights with regard to the underlying commonalities involving that which can be measured.
When I zoom into certain fractals I experience the same emotions as when I gaze at the succession of astonishing Hubble pictures which have revealed ever deeper glimpses into the universe. In addition, I don't consider fractal patterns to be mere Platonic abstractions, but rather manifestations of the physical universe, no less real than anything else which can be physically measured. The essential question, as you've implied, is to what extent fractal dynamics actually do reflect an underlying cosmic organizing principle.
From the start, analogies have played a fundamental model building role in scientific exploration. However certain analogies may be more useful as metaphors than actual models. For example, attempts have been made to apply the principles of Quantum Mechanics to classical situations which may be far too complex to operate according to those principles. Still, the application of QM metaphors can lead to fertile insights, even if misapplied in some technical sense.
Though I'm not quite ready to say that I expect the "unified equation of our universe" to be fractal in nature, I certainly hope it can be shown to be so, especially from the perspectives of parsimony and the more poetic "Truth is beauty."
In particular, I'm not yet convinced that the full extent of self-referentiality apparently required for consciousness, can be fully captured in the context of fractal dynamics as presently formulated. Any "Theory Of Everything" would seem incomplete without being able to describe the dynamics underlying what we experience and describe as consciousness. However, if we consider the fractal patterns we generate to be the product of a kind of metafractal co-creation between ourselves and the outcomes of iterating various complex valued equations, then that might point the way to some kind of unified fractal based TOE. However, I cannot presently conceive of any way of formalizing this "co-creative metafractal" idea in such a way as to render it amenable to scientific testing, since there exists such a wide chasm between the algorithms involved in iteratively recomputing the outputs of complex valued equations, and the vastly more complex iteratively recursive models which may be required to characterize the action/reaction loops which describe our behavior in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FractalWoman
Guest
|
|
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2010, 03:38:47 AM » |
|
Fractex, Consciousness is a unified field... Here's funny story. A few years ago I had someone contact me about using one of my Buddhabrot images in their magazine. The magazine is called "Light of Consciousness". I was happy to oblige and gave then a nice high rez Buddhabrot called Golden Buddha. The reference to the issues can be found here: http://light-of-consciousness.org/back-issues/LOC_CurrentArticles_18_1.htmAs you can see, the article that they associated my Buddhabrot image with was called: "Consciousness is the Unified Field" by John Hagelin. Now John Hagelin is one of the physicists from The Secret and What the Bleep. I was really surprised because I knew about Dr. Hagelin and was totally tickled to have my image associated with the idea of a unified field. Buddhabrot is in essence a unified field. Here is what Dr. Hagelin has to say about this unified field: The unified field is the fundamental field of unity, the field of peace. Coherence, unity, peace, is communicated through the field of consciousness. The field of consciousness is a field that we share. Stuff like that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM