Existence According To Bone - Mind Blown In 3....2....1....

your fractal theory of reality is bunk. sorry. the analogy breaks when confronted by the point like characteristics of protons, neutrons, electrons... as revealed by particle colliders. now take a look at galactic collisions. the analogy immediatly fails on comparison of particle collision results and galaxy collision results.
beauty and intrigiung does not equal truth.

reply to post by Bone75


Quantum only applies to particles. As soon as you have newtonian sized bodies, like galaxies, there is newtonian principles interfering. In other words, there is different laws governing atoms and different laws governing galaxies.

Even if this theory fails to hold through, I wonder if the random nature of electrons has something to do with the recycling of black holes. Or what the nucleus would actually look like

I kind of imagine it like an amorphous cathedral

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Bone75

 

Quantum only applies to particles. As soon as you have newtonian sized bodies, like galaxies, there is newtonian principles interfering. In other words, there is different laws governing atoms and different laws governing galaxies.

That's not set in stone...

Open problems

The quantum state of the universe is ultimately an experimental question and should be resolved by comparison with observation. The 'correct' quantum state should at the very least be compatible with our present-day cosmological data, including the large-scale homogeneity and isotropy and the small observed anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. Computing classical predictions of this sort from any proposed initial quantum state remains however a formidable challenge. There are two reasons for this. The first is technical, the second conceptual.

The technical reason is that making predictions from a given initial quantum state requires a sufficiently good control of the dynamical laws of quantum gravity. With our current candidates for a quantum theory of gravity, such a control exists if the theory is first classically specialised to a cosmological model universe that only incorporates a few parameters to describe the universe. For example, a homogeneous model universe sets the matter density to be the same at every point in space, describing thus the matter distribution by just one parameter, the average density. It takes however an infinite number of parameters to describe the real universe: The matter density in the real universe is not the same at every point in space. It is currently not well understood how accurately the quantum dynamics of quantised cosmological models, with only a few parameters, approximate the quantum dynamics of the real universe, with its infinite number of parameters.

The conceptual reason goes right to the heart of quantum theory. In the overwhelming majority of applications of quantum theory, physicists are dealing with a comparatively small quantum system on the one hand (a molecule, or colliding elementary particles), and on the other hand with measuring devices (such as particle detectors) that can be understood largely without resorting to quantum physics. The standard ways in which physicists extract predictions from quantum theory make use of this two-fold view of the world - here the quantum system, there the measuring device. In quantum cosmology, where the quantum system is the whole universe, this standard view is not valid any more. What is required is a working conceptual understanding of how to make classical predictions from a quantum state when even the observers are part of the quantum system that they observe. In the pursuit of this understanding, quantum cosmologists have in the past two decades found much common ground with laboratory quantum physicists whose experiments can in certain circumstances exhibit quantum mechanical behaviour between two ends of a room, or in some recent experiments even between the two banks of the Danube.

source

this reminds me of a quote from Animal House. When the students are getting high with the professor and he says something along the lines of "who's to say there doesn't exist a billion universes on your fingernails?"

Yes me to.
I thought about this Years ago.

and I came to the conclusion that every is ALL
made of frequencies! that was over 30 years ago.
I told my father as I knew that one day science would see this to.
but hes dead now. should have told more people.
they all think I am nuts for what I tell them any way.

now we have facebook so the scientists can steal are ideas.

Originally posted by darkstar57
your fractal theory of reality is bunk. sorry. the analogy breaks when confronted by the point like characteristics of protons, neutrons, electrons... as revealed by particle colliders. now take a look at galactic collisions. the analogy immediatly fails on comparison of particle collision results and galaxy collision results.
beauty and intrigiung does not equal truth.

Galaxies don't "collide" they fuse.... Did you know that when 2 galaxies "collide", the stars and planets never touch each other?

Would you like to know what else fuses much the same way? Atoms

Would you like to know what else fuses much the same way? Chromosomes

This isn't a new theory of any kind, infact this is the theory most youngsters develop about the world at some stage (I know I did, and I know my parents did). From the moment a child learns about microbes, it can be said to be logical to assume the same in the other direction - we are part of alarger organism.

All you've effectively done different is superimposed two images, which are of very arguable accuracy lol.

That being said, this is an interesting line of thought regardless. However, you're assuming the fundamental being of our universe are the smallest of particles, but there is a particle-wave duality to take into account, where the wave form is probably more fundamental than the particle (since the wave form contains ALL information and the particle counter-part is just a 'physical' manifestation at any point or path - cba to get into the quantum physics details, just wrote a crapload on the Double Slit experiment and such in another thread).

This potential is infinity, and just like how our universe started from this, it is going through states (time has to exist to maintain the universes ultimate balance, whether it be constant mass or constant energy, the universe is harmonic and only appears chaotic from within) until it returns to this state. It seems that we are stuck in a sort of infinite loop, yes. However, whatever our universe arose from had to contain all the possible information for our universe and more (atleast from my perspective), therefore the chain of events would be more like this:

Original Set: Mother Field (Infinity, the dao, god, whatever you want to call it)
Sub-Sets: Our universe and the potentially infinite amount of parallel universes (today considered a serious possibility by science)
Sub-Sub-Sets: The virtual world

What do I mean by the virtual world? Well, we have technically learnt the ability to create our own universes, virtually, and explore them from our sub-set using an interface we've created (the computer) which works VERY similiarly to how our body is used as an interface for our universe from the mother field.

Though this is an EXTREMELY vague description of what I'm trying to get at, I think you'll see what I mean by it not being as simple as atoms are universes which are atoms which are universes e.t.c and that each part can represent the other fully (like fractals).

Good discussion in general anyway, food for thought.

reply to post by Bone75


Huh?

reply to post by Bone75


Does that mean that Earth colliding with "Nibiru" is absolutely impossible?

Originally posted by jrbx2012
reply to post by Bone75

 

Does that mean that Earth colliding with "Nibiru" is absolutely impossible?

No. Our particle exists in a chaotic state where anything is possible because of us.

For those of you who are still following this thread, you might be interested in Erik Streed's response to my question.
Another poster in this thread brought up the fact that the rings were believed to be caused by the equipment, and aren't actually part of the atom, so I figured... who better to clear things up than the guy who took the picture?

Here was my question...

Hello Eric. I'd like to congratulate you and your team and thank you for providing the world with this image. I'm curious as to why you posted one of the images with the rings if you're pretty sure they're not part of the atom. Could you provide us with any images that don't contain the rings?

And here's Mr. Streed's response...

It was the highest resolution image we took and the one that looked the best. Most of the other images are at ~ 4x lower resolution because we were optimising the image capture for fitting rather than display purposes. We've done more work at it does appear that the rings are related to lensing/phase shifting behaviours the atom.

Read that last sentence again... (I'll fix his typos this time)

"We've done more work and it does appear that the rings are related to lensing/phase shifting behaviors of the atom."

This is his blog.
He also provided a link to the research...

arxiv.org...

reply to post by galactix


galactix

Well said to Hopeforeveryone, strange indeed. Are we talking about brain structure or the "mind", Mind (consciousness) resides everywhere, "the brain" resides in the skull. Whilst the brain is physical mind is the portal to the universe ie third eye/pineal connection IMO. What a great thread

The empty space between atoms is explained when we look up into the sky, we can see the other atoms far off into the distance, but we are unable to see that we are all attached to something larger, just as the atoms that make up us can't see us as a whole.

reply to post by Bone75


For as long as I can rememebr, Even back to when I was 5 or maybe less, I have believed something similar to this. I have always felt that our entire universe was nothing more than a molecule on the fingernail of another lifeform. And one day, which will be a matter of days to that lifeform, but billions of years to us, as time is relative.. It will clip it's nails.

reply to post by dJbdJb

Whenever this theory (or similar) gets brought up, I see a lot of people coming to the realisation of how small they are. Think about it the other way. Think about how big you are. Yes you.
By logic, if you decide to play along with this idea, then we are each a massive universe containing billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets. You are a God of your own body/universe, and you should treat it with love and respect. Otherwise your inhabitants (micro organisms) might not believe you exist.

You get where I'm going?

You know, I hadn't thought of it that way. But now that you've mentioned it, I must admit it's a very powerful insight. Thank you for pointing it out.

Mississippi Delta

From the link:

"It’s not a coincidence the image shares a striking similarity with blood vessels – a structure hundreds of thousands of times smaller. The fractal pattern that occurs in both is an efficient way to cover a large surface area. It also occurs in the neurons in our brain and in the system of airways in our lungs."

Looks a hell of a lot like the branch pattern of a tree:



And a lightning bolt, too:

reply to post by deometer


The Alps:

reply to post by Bone75


I think it is impossible to ignore that the shapes occurring in nature are random. However, I think that sometimes what makes a shape appear to be "random" has mostly to do with a narrow view of what "random" means. The resulting shape that we see may not represent anything more than how our minds turn information into perceptible shapes, and not reflecting the reality of a phenomenon.

Whole-brain imaging of neuronal activity in a larval zebrafish. Courtesy of Misha B. Ahrens and Philipp J. Keller, Howard Hughes Medical Institute. www.youtube.com...