Gravity Is Also Fractal In Nature

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by common_sense_seeker, Aug 14, 2009.

  1. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    This could be an alternative angle on the unpuzzling of spiral galaxy dynamics: the stars are 'trying' to form a spiral due to the instrinsic structure of the gravity which binds them together.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    Can you elaborate?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    It's more correct to say that the structures formed by gravitationally interacting objects are fractal, not gravity itself. Gravity doesn't have a shape, it's a force. You can argue that gravitationally governed systems do exhibit fractal-like behaviour, the solar system is a cloud of things going around the Sun, the galaxy is a cloud of stars going around the core, the local cluster is a cloud of galaxies going around the barycenter, etc.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Many things are fractal in nature, and no matter the scale you are looking at, things tend to arrange themselves similarly. Fractals are how you get unlimited sequence with only a simple equation governing it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Wise words with a lovely example..
     
  9. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    You'd have to re-read my threads w.r.t the imagery of a fractal-like build-up of spinning structure before the BB. The high energy radiating matter which I propose spontaneously erupts to form opposing mega-helices in the act of Creation would therefore also radiated helices i.e. structures which can induce a force of attraction on other unconnected matter. Hence in this intuitive model, gravity is compossed of different sized and different spin energy helices. It's entropy would be 'similar' to that of baryonic matter we are familiar with.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2009
  10. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Any comment Prometheus?
     
  11. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    Plenty, most of which I'd probably get banned for. You are stringing scientific buzzwords that you don't understand together in the hope that people will think you're clever. What you are doing is not science - it's waffling.
     
  12. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    This is the argument that Richard Dawkins uses whenever someone disagrees with him. It's a very arrogant way of thinking. I bet you're a Dawkins fan, aren't you?
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    So you claiming to have a 'simple and elegant' explaination for dark energy when you know nothing of general relativity, cosmology, theoretical physics nor any of the experiments relating to the phenomena isn't arrogant but when we point out you're using words in a way which implies you don't know their meaning we're arrogant?

    How many times have you claimed to have an idea someone famous, like Hooke, was working towards? How many times have you claimed to have some explaination for a phenomenon you couldn't describe at all? How many times have you made claims you simply cannot back up?

    Take a good long look in the mirror before you call people arrogant. And before you say it, yes I am arrogant towards you. The difference being I can put my money where my mouth is.
     
  14. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    You're a glorified lab technician who thinks he knows better than a senior lecturer, president of the Royal Astronomical Society and writer of cosmology books. Your Dawkins biggest fan I bet.
     
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I've never worked in a lab. The last time I did an experiment was 7 years ago, before I even went to university.

    And remember, any attempt you do to play the "There's people out there better than you" card will backfire because if you're playing the 'lets submit to authority' game you aren't allowed to question me because, glorified lab tech or not, I'm definitely way more qualified and educated in this stuff than you.

    I have never said that. You put forth the claim that the pop science book you are/were reading said that the evidence for dark matter was not valid or not enough to make the idea of dark matter worthwhile. I questioned that, because I happen to know plenty of people who have or are studying dark matter in both cosmological and particle physics terms, I've been to many seminars given by senior lecturers and professors on it and dark matter papers are constantly being put on ArXiv. The evidence is there and a pop science book will either gloss over the details, be wrong or will put in too much details which results in the layman reader failing to understand.

    As for heads of the RAS, an ex head, currently the head of The Royal Society, is Martin Rees, who authoered this book (among others) which talks at great length on dark matter. Nice guy, he was (and still is) the Master of the college I went to as an undergrad.

    And besides, that has nothing to do with what I said to you, that you're a hypocrite for complaining Prometheus has "a very arrogant way of thinking" yet not once has he (or I) said something like "I've got an idea which explains the biggest problems/issues/questions in physics today!". You have. Yet you get all your information from pop science books, which you never question, yet complain when we point you to mainstream work in the form of published papers by people as or more qualified than the authors of the books you talk about.

    I am well aware my work is neither ground breaking nor massively impressive. But, none-the-less, I've done a little bit for science which has been recognised by others. I know I can't answer the big questions so I aim for what I can realistically do. You've tried to bite off more than you can chew and you're getting a larger and larger chip on your shoulder when people point out your hypocrisy and your utter lack of any results.

    Now run along and go make up a few ancronyms, you seem to think it's a good use of your time.
     
  16. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Well, at least you've admitted that you are just something of a jumped-up lab technician with tunnel vision. You're not a creative like myself, that's all.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    And what have you got to show for it? You can't recall anything from your astronomy degree and every attempt you have at doing anything vaguely close to physics is fundamentally flawed. Imagination untempered by knowledge is worthless in science. Random guesses with no means to develop them are useless.

    I do not deny that I am not 'creative' in the same way that artists would describe themselves but I am not devoid of new and original ideas when it comes to physics. The fact that I've discussed none of them with you doesn't mean I don't have them, it just means I don't think I'd gain anything from discussions with you.

    But feel free to give me explicit example of what your 'creative' streak has managed to do for you in the realm of science, because at present you don't seem to have even managed the accomplishments of a jumped up lab technician

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    You're mistaking "undisciplined and random" with "creative".
    It's a common fault.
     
  19. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    A common fault amongst the undisciplined and random, that is.
     
  20. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    There's no such thing as 'random' you donuts.
     
  21. Diode-Man Awesome User Title Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    Pretty f***en crazy. Good image.
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    While you can make an argument for a fundamentally deterministic universe that doesn't alter the fact there's no methodology or justified logic to how you 'construct' the ideas you claim easily and elegantly explain inflation or dark matter or whatever. You are simply making it up as you go along, which while you might think is 'creative', it's utterly useless if you can't formalise it into a working framework. At least being a jumped up lab tech means I produce something of value, even if it's not particularly creative (it must be original or I don't pass). I asked you to give one example of anything worthwhile you've managed to do in science but it seems you're unable to answer that request so you're ignoring it. Just proves my point.
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    True.
    It proves nothing and is nothing more than an obnoxious arrogance. Asking someone to present their contributions in order to have ideas that could have merit should be left to the hard science forums. If you can't discuss ideas without playing the "I'm a big deal and you are nothing" card then stay out of Pseudoscience.
     

Share This Page