could the universe be part of a larger fractal?

well?

I much prefer the idea that the entire universe is simply an elementary
particle in an uncomprehesibly bigger universe, which in turn is a particle
in an even bigger univere, and so on, infinitly up and down the 'ladder'.

Can really hurt your brain if you think about it too much though

Larry

"troll hunter" wrote in message
...
well?

In message , troll hunter
writes
well?


As in a Charlier cosmology ? (invented before the word fractal had been
coined, and before the universe was believed to be expanding)
AIUI, if the universe is expanding, any higher level is probably
unobservable, because it's moving away from us faster than light. Some
people think the part we can see is fractal.

Larry wrote:

I much prefer the idea that the entire universe is simply an elementary
particle in an uncomprehesibly bigger universe, which in turn is a particle
in an even bigger univere, and so on, infinitly up and down the 'ladder'.

Can really hurt your brain if you think about it too much though

I remember Carl Sagan suggesting that in his TV series some years ago,
then saying there were solid reasons against it. I don't know what the
reasons were, or whether he amplified on them.

Nice idea though.

--

Peter

"""Can really hurt your brain if you think about it too much though"""

My brain-cell hurts enough just thinking about this one.


"Larry" wrote in message
. uk...
I much prefer the idea that the entire universe is simply an elementary
particle in an uncomprehesibly bigger universe, which in turn is a
particle
in an even bigger univere, and so on, infinitly up and down the 'ladder'.

Can really hurt your brain if you think about it too much though

Larry

"troll hunter" wrote in message
...
well?

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message , troll hunter
writes
well?


As in a Charlier cosmology ? (invented before the word fractal had been
coined, and before the universe was believed to be expanding)
AIUI, if the universe is expanding, any higher level is probably
unobservable, because it's moving away from us faster than light. Some
people think the part we can see is fractal.

Particles are small parts of a fractal.
The universe is a malformed dynamic unstable fractal.

"troll hunter" wrote in message
...
well?

Didn't someone recently solve Einsteins equations using imaginary numbers
and it, err, it caused some excitement for one reason or another (I really
cant remember the facts - probably a New Scientist snippet a few months
ago).

A decidedly fragile link I know (as Mandlebrot/Julia fractals are produced
using simple iterative calculations on imaginary numbers).

What I find intruiging about fractals is that they are not 1d or 2d but
somewhere inbetween. I have trouble with simple integer dimensions such as
the supposed 10 dimensional Universe (4 of space/time and 6 of Calabi Yau
space). I'll wait till I've understood this before I go fractional ;-)

Oddly enough I was thumbing through my old copy of "A Fractal Geometry of
Nature" only a few weeks ago.

Regards,
Ed.

Particles are small parts of a fractal.
The universe is a malformed dynamic unstable fractal.

It's been a while since I read so much **** in one thread here
in this newsgroup.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

Fleetie wrote:

Particles are small parts of a fractal.
The universe is a malformed dynamic unstable fractal.

It's been a while since I read so much **** in one thread here
in this newsgroup.

Perhaps you could enlighten us mere mortals as to the true nature of
life, the universe and everything.

Thanks,

--

Peter

(Peter Hayes) wrote:

Perhaps you could enlighten us mere mortals as to the true nature of
life, the universe and everything.

Thanks,

42

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47