The Conceptual Flaw of a 'Curved Space'

(I was editing this post in another window so luckily still had a copy of the text at least though and I found most the images again, though I put links instead so that should skip the cookie)

quote:

---

Originally posted by thebobgy

SteveA, You pose some very interesting concepts. What I would like to know is; what is the first observed event that you witnessed that preceeded your theory? Not something you read or heard, what did you witness. Thank you for your time.
thebobgy

---

This a very good question. I admit that much of it is based upon observations of others ... in a sense most all mathematical understanding we have is by a view passed on from others except for our innate physical understand of "how things work" (we're a product of the age we live in ... from the language, concepts, political views ... we all take key portions and pass the kernels on to others in our communications). If you search for information, you're likely to find supporting evidence, even if it comes from arguments against it. I'd say the most personal experiences are seeing a quartz crystal, or the growth of a tree and even people, though these same concepts are mirrored in movies, religion, etc. Whether or not they are simply coincidental seems to be rather irrelevant - our minds of necessity have to compress information. Imagine a tree in your mind - look at all the leaves and branches, down to the trunk. Now you didn't truly see a real tree but instead took the concepts you've learned about trees and took a random starting spot and followed it through these relationships in your mind to get an idea of what the tree looked like. To be more scientific about it, you probably took a few dozens bits of information and applied them to your mental algorithm of how tree like objects are constructed and bingo - out comes a mental image of a tree. But that's because a tree doesn't have the information complexity (from a human perspective at least) as the same amount of matter dispursed as dust particles in the wind. You can envision a dust cloud, but you can't truly see all the particles. From the point of view of mentally analyzing a dust cloud, it would be fruitless to even try to trace each particle. We can't sense each atom in an apple, but that's fine, we've seen spherical shapes before and they are much easier to work with. If we had to try to calculate where every atom of an apple was in a flat space before eating it, we'd die of starvation first .

I don't know if that really helped you at all, but that's the general view I see of how these work - they are prevalent in almost every thought, whether or not people realize it (just like people don't innately understand the transformation the optical cortex does but instead we create a relatively "fractal" image by combining a smaller set of simpler ideas to hypothesize the transformation done by an eye. (Ok, I don't want to drift off) To do a bit more of a salespitch, let me show you a few things:

www.cosmicastronomy.com

(I can't find the specific image I posted, but there are a bajillion and one images ... sadly, with massive file sizes that show things like the orbital shells of helium atom etc.) The link in the prior thread claimed they scale well also.

www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/honr228q/notes/bindingenergy.gif

Why the exponentially increasing period to binding energy in atoms?

www.ceet.niu.edu/mrdl/software/periodic%20table%20A.jpg

Why does the growth of elemental characteristic follow an octave structure (if you remove the left 2 columns and noble gases, you have a rather exponential growth, along with matching chemical characteristics). The pattern I see appears resemble a fibonacci sequence, by duplicating prior sets and adding new characteristics using the forms j^2*2^k.

I spent some time trying to figure out the fractal pattern to it and then did a search on the net and found someone else already figured it out (though the fractal truely has more dimensions and should include mangetic characteristics) - like a 3-D fractal, using something along the lines of the right hand rule of force, charge and magnetic field would work well, though you could pick many other dimensions like melting point, radioactivity, spectral emmissions etc. though after a point these would be largely redundant as these characteristics can only fall within a limited number of dimensions.

Periodic Fractal of the Elements (again this is simply 2-D but could easily be expanded on ... the beauty of this is that it's a fractal based upon observed physical phenomenon and this same interaction between charges and magnetic fields etc. could potentially apply to galactic interactions as well - simply put 1 mole of quasars + 1 mole of red giants = 1 mole of X?)

www.superliminal.com/pfractal.htm

<b><i>This is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</i></b>

Notice the self-replicating shape. You could likely extend this below hydrogen to find traits of subatomic particles,(though this shape could repeat at stellar and galactic scales, to give an alchemy of the universe)and use "chemistry" to predict interactions of quarks or planetary bodies or interactions in the weather.

Similar characteristics for magnetism etc. would likely hold true over at least some scales.

But why is this pattern to the elements overlooked? Because we prefer straight lines, whereas nature uses fractal curves.

www.fractaluniverse.org/2.php

Do the laws of physics apply to intergalactic storms, just as they hold true to storms on Earth? There's an "absorption spectrum" to asteroids in our solar system (I couldn't find the graph but it shows asteroid orbital periods versus Jupiter rotation and makes sense why some periods are unsustainable) It seems extremely unlikey that such complex phenomon don't share similar key functions and topologies. If you altered your viewpoint a bit (to shrink horizontally the storm on Earth), these two would be almost identical. Considering if there's a small set of principles by which the universe operates, then it seems almost impossible to see anything but such fractalized versions of things. Consider the spirals of a storm in themselves are fractal in that the arms extend in greater and greater circles, just as the elemental characteristics do. There's a simple math to the universe that just needs to be unfolded.

You know, I think when you get right down to it, all things in nature are really a series of straight lines. Notice how you can't actually manage to represent a "curve" on a computer modelling program? No matter how it's done, it's always a series of vertices connected by straight lines. Perhaps due to the infinite division of matter into smaller and smaller parts, the number of vertices effectively is unlimited, and that perhaps may even explain all energy and motion in the universe because nothing can ever have an absolute outline, who knows.....

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965