PDA

View Full Version : The Anthropic Universe


Ian Beardsley
October 7th, 2004, 01:33 PM
This is a work Where I have sought to use the tools and concepts of science to do art.
An Anthropic Solar System and Planet by Ian Beardsley
Copyright by Ian Beardsley October 5, 2004
Abstract: It is shown here that there is a connection between the microworld, the world of elements and compounds, and the macroworld, the world of our solar system, especially where humans are concerned. Such a connection is evidence for an anthropic universe.
Furthermore, since other stellar systems may not even exist as we need them, and the distances between them are so immense, it might be better to unlock the mysteries of making them, and find the structure in ours that allows for so much life. This correlation between the microworld and the macroworld, where our solar system is concerned, may define some of the parameters necessary to achieve this, and may be related to why the solar system is life bearing.
Part 1
An interesting family of substances is methane (CH_4), ammonia (NH_3) and water vapor (H_2O). Methane is tetrahedral in structure, a carbon atom sourounded by 4 hydrogens. Ammonia is trigonal pyramidal, a nitrogen atom surrounded by 3 hydrogen atoms, and water vapor is triangular, or bent, an oxygen atom surrounded by two hydrogens. These represent stable structural systems as they are all systems of triangles, which are the only stable polygons. These substances combined under energy with hydrogen gas form amino acids, the building blocks of life. The core atoms of these molecules, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, are all in period two of the periodic table and follow directly one after the other, and are all in amino acids, the hydrogen as well. It is a hypothesis of astrobiology that amino acids formed in the protoplanetary cloud before the earth ever formed. In this sense we may have our origins in deep space. Is what I mean by structural systems is that there are only three structural systems, the tetrahedron, the octahedron, and the icosohedron. They are the only stable solids, that is non-collapsing flex corners whose faces are
triangles. Most compounds are something other than these, like pentagons with linear off shoots for example, that comprise the wrong number of atoms to make a "solid" unit, and I mean solid as in the pythagorean solids, the geometric term. Both methane and ammonia make different variations on the tetrahedron, a pythagorean solid.
When plants perform photosynthesis, they combine carbon dioxide with water and release oxygen. The reaction is:

CO_2+2H_2O-‡CH_2O+O_2+H_2O

As can be seen a sugar is made. Important to most plants to do this is Nitrogen. Nitrogen (N_2) is the most abundant gas in the earth atmosphere, comprising about 78.03% of it. We now calculate the molecular masses of these special gases:
CH_4=(12.01+4(1.01))=16.05
NH_3=(14.01+3(1.01))=17.04
CO_2=(12.01+2(16.00))=44.01
H_2O=(2(1.01)+16.00)=18.02
N_2=(14.01+14.01)=28.02
O_2=(16.00+16.00)=32.00

We now form some ratios between these molecular masses:
(O_2)/(CH_4)=32.00/16.05=1.992~2
(NH_3)/(CH_4)=17.04/16.06=1.061~1
(CO_2)/(O_2)=44.01/32.00=1.14~sqrt(2)
(CO_2)/(N_2)=44.01/28.02~1.6=(sqrt(5)+1)/2=phi
(O_2)/(H_2O)=32.00/18.02=1.776~sqrt(3)
Notice that these values are given by the sequence:
|2cos(pi/n)| n=(1,2,3,4,5,6)(pi/n)radians
Observe:
2=|2cos(pi)|
0=|2cos(pi/2)|
1=|2cos(pi/3)|
sqrt(2)=|2cos(pi/4)|
(sqrt(5)+1)/2=phi=|2cos(pi/5)|
sqrt(3)=|2cos(pi/6)|
Geometrically sqrt(2) is the ratio of the side of a square to its radius. Phi is the ratio of the chord of a regular pentagon to its side. Sqrt(3) is the ratio of the side of an equilateral triangle to its radius, and 1 is the ratio of the side of a regular hexagon to its radius. The square, the regular hexagon and the equilateral triangle are the tessellating regular polygons. The regular pentagon is one of the archemedian tessellators.

Part 2
We compare the mass of the earth to the mass of the sun, and multiply that ratio by the distance between them. Let the mass of the earth be M_e, and the mass of the sun be M_s. Let the distance between them be r.
(M_e/M_s)r=(5.976E27/1.989E33)(1.495979E13)=(4.495E7)cm=449.5km

We now divide that result by the radius of the earth, R_e:

(449.5km)/(6378.5km)=0.07

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and Nitrogen is the most abundant element in the earth atmosphere. We now compare their molar masses:

(H/N)=(1.01)/(14.01)=0.07

And we see that

(H/N)=((M_e)(r))/((M_s)(R_e))

Having showed the last equation, where hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and nitrogen is the most abundant element in the earth atmosphere, then since Mars is a terrestrial planet upon which we can set foot as opposed to
Venus and Mercury, let’s apply the same idea to mars. The most abundant gas in the Mars atmosphere is carbon dioxide, or CO_2. It in fact comprises 95.3% of its atmosphere. We have:
H/(CO_2)=1.01/44.01=0.02
Now let M_m= mass of mars, M_s = mass of the sun, r= the distance between them, and R_m= the radius of mars. We have
(M_m)(r)/(M_s)(R_m)=(6.418E26)(2.279409E13)/(1.989E33)(3.393096E8)=0.02
And therefore,
H/(CO_2)=(M_m)(r)/(M_s)(R_m)

Keep in mind these equations, both for the earth and mars, hold for a solar system at its peak as an orderly arrangement of parts. Eventually it will begin to degenerate. The sun is losing mass every day and therefore r, for any of the planets, will grow.
Thus we say in general:

H/A=(M_p)r/(M_s)(R_p)

where H is the molar mass of hydrogen, A is the molar mass of the most abundant element or gas in the planet’s atmosphere, (M_p) is the mass of the planet, (M_s) is the mass of the star, r is the distance between the planet and the star and (R_p) is the radius of the planet. Lets look at the quantity (M_p)r/(M_s). It is equal to (d_1)/(d_2)(d_1+d_2), the ratio of the distances between the balancing point of a cosmic teeter totter and the planet and the star balanced on it, times its length. We then compare such a distance to the radius of the planet.

Part 3
The relative equatorial surface gravities uncorrected for centrifugal force of the earth and mars respectively are 1.000 and 0.380. Their proportions are
1.000/0.380=2.63
The ratio of the molar mass of oxygen gas to that of carbon is
(O_2)/C=32.00/12.01
Thus, (g_e)/(g_m)~(O_2)/C
where g_e is the equatorial surface gravity of the earth and g_m is the equatorial surface gravity of mars. The centrifugal forces being nominal, this says it takes the same amount of energy to lift a mole of carbon on the earth as it does to lift a mole of oxygen gas on mars the same distance if the atmospheric pressures are excluded. Carbon is the basis of life and oxygen gas its necessity (for human life).
The data for this study came from the Handbook Of Space Astronomy And Astrophysics, by Martin V. Zombeck, Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Blackwell
October 7th, 2004, 01:49 PM
Dammit, I was just about to post this exact same thing!!!!

There goes my life's work....

Cyrus
October 7th, 2004, 01:53 PM
Out of pure curiosity, I read through the entire post and made an effort to understand the conclusions you made, but where is the art? I'm pretty sure that using that term even in its broadest sense implies that you actually created something. Maybe I should ask what your definition of art is in this case. :thinking:

Bammer
October 7th, 2004, 02:24 PM
Not bad for a beginner. I like the atmosphere. Keep studying anatomy though. You need to work on that.

Mr. Pale
October 7th, 2004, 03:25 PM
Sweet holy crap that's good art....I am humbled.

Ian Beardsley
October 7th, 2004, 03:50 PM
Out of pure curiosity, I read through the entire post and made an effort to understand the conclusions you made, but where is the art? I'm pretty sure that using that term even in its broadest sense implies that you actually created something. Maybe I should ask what your definition of art is in this case. :thinking:

I will tell you the story behind this. I submitted the work to a scientific journal, and after some reviewing, they concluded it was not science. I realized they were right, that it is art. I painted a picture of an anthropic universe with words and numbers, and in this sense it is of the school of art that art immitates nature, not the other way around. I am saying what nature is, but not why. It does have practical applications, in that the description is emperical, but to be science, I would have to explain the cause of these relationships, and since I don't, it is a philosophical statement of my beliefs, and feelings, backed up with data. If it is not art, then as it does not belong to the realm of science, I don't know where it belongs.
--Ian

jermainevl
October 7th, 2004, 04:07 PM
Hahaha, I like this. I really do! Physics and chemistry fascinate me. Funny that you posted this on an art thread, but unfortunately it will probably be deleted by a moderator :( , which I can understand though. Maybe you should have posted it in the Lounge section.

Ian Beardsley
October 7th, 2004, 04:08 PM
That value for R_m, the radius of Mars, that is covered up by a smiley face is R_m=3.393096E8.
--Ian

Blackwell
October 7th, 2004, 04:14 PM
Thanks on behalf of the others for the reply, Ian - I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought the initial post was some kind of joke, and we'd never see your face around here again.

I'm not sure what inspired you to post in this forum - by your explanation, it is art, and it certainly is a concept, but certainly not "concept art" as it pertains to concept characters for video games and movies (although I could totally see Harrison Ford starring as your character CO_2+2H_2O-‡CH_2O+O_2+H_2O....... I kid, I kid!)

Anyway, definitely an interesting sidebar in the CA forums. I sure did have to switch to the other half of my brain to get through that post.

PS -- the unintentional addition of the smiley in your equation was very amusing.

transient23
October 7th, 2004, 04:50 PM
This is so freaking cool... I'm saving it to my hard drive just to read whenever I need to feel that things make sense in the universe.

fungi
October 7th, 2004, 04:56 PM
*dumb*

cuzzo
October 8th, 2004, 12:12 PM
i can tell you why this got rejected...

you never came close to proving your claim

this is not art, it's an elementary attempt at a proof that would take @ least millions close to billions of pages of information, not to mention millions of years of observations to be even called close to conclusive...

i think it's an arrogant claim for the anthropic nature of the universe, being that we are such a small part of it... just because carbon is the base element for human life etc.etc.etc. doesn't mean that life can't exist in forms or chemical combinations that we are not aware...

what if a star is alive? it has been shown that galaxies are very similar to living organisms... our measure of life is too biased and self-referential to come even close to being conclusive... itz like an ant thinking it controls the entire planet and only 5 seconds later a human squashes it... the scope of science is much to small...

anyways, yea i don't think this is art... :dur:

stalecracker
October 8th, 2004, 12:41 PM
*snif* I smell bacon...

Do you smell bacon?

Ferocia
October 11th, 2004, 05:06 AM
While I agree with Cyrus; I do believe that a piece can be described as art as by the person. If the artist feels the need to explain his/her piece, said piece is too subtle. Most artists feel the need for explanation as their work applies to them and others. But once an artist takes a piece(especially as one as non-universally understood, and complex as this one) and attempts to explain it, his/her true meaning loses itself. I think you belong here just as much as anyone. No one can tell you that this is not art; humanities teaches us that art, just as beauty, lies in the eyes/hands of the creator. Just don't get too carried away, I agree that your medium for which you've decided to take down this monumental task is a bit extreme, but rather clever if you think about it. And just in this post as it is life and art, there is no certainty and everything seems to subsequently contradict itself in an unintended yet sensical way. A graphic piece would be more suitable especially on this website. :wink:

Yiako
October 11th, 2004, 05:18 AM
So the conclusion is... there's no sugar in Mars?!

waronmars
October 11th, 2004, 05:27 AM
I got plenty of sugar, eh?

NOOSE
October 11th, 2004, 06:00 AM
the smaller things are, the bigger they look..

Ill add that to the quotes Im doing this month lol ..

eygji
October 11th, 2004, 04:20 PM
alot of what you are saying is lost on me, but at the same time i totally like this.

i agree that it might not fit the description of "concept art", but i would classify this as art, especially if you proclaim it to be.
i would probably consider this as more of an emphasis on the process of creating than the final product. many arts have done similar process oriented "art"s so, i think this fits in quite nicely.

i never once, while reading that doubted that it was "art".. but given that it's posted here, i kinda expected some sort of graphic..

interesting none the less. ;)

Ian Mack
October 11th, 2004, 06:21 PM
I've always held the opinion that life may exist soomewhere in the universe which doesn't use hydrogen, or nitrogen as its base blocks. What if a life form could exist on a basis that isn't protein based?

Perhaps you see art in the totals of your equations...or perhaps in the ratios?

Ratios are a big part of art but I think what you wrote falls somewhere between art and science. I call it science fiction.

I was also expecting a image. How would you represent this visually?

SMRT

Imp Head
October 11th, 2004, 09:33 PM
How would you represent this visually?

http://www.brainpuke.com/osc/monkey.jpg

hurricane
October 11th, 2004, 10:11 PM
too much freetime my friend :)


first glance at the post made my brain liquify and dripp out of my nose.... impressive and... yea



i'll just fire myself...

jermainevl
October 12th, 2004, 06:16 AM
That's very interesting Otherside, what you said about ratios. Indeed they are connected with art. I immediately thought about Pythagoras, and his theory about everything in the universe being connected through ratios (bleh :blah: I don't know how to say that in English, but I think you all know what I mean). I find this fascinating and I too believe this. Come to think of it...isn't the whole universe just a big piece of art? ;)

brads3d
October 12th, 2004, 05:59 PM
does this have anything to do with the fibonacci(sp?) numbers? the 'golden series ratio' that applies to spiral galaxies and rose buds? (1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,...)

ElvisMcVegas
October 12th, 2004, 11:05 PM
anyone having trouble seeing the pictures?

Ian Beardsley
December 4th, 2004, 10:31 PM
This "The Anthropic Universe" has now grown into something I call "Project Genesis". You can find it a http://www.project-genesis.org

Ian

Kenny_Callicutt
December 4th, 2004, 11:25 PM
art is purpouseless play - John Kage.

you my freind, have redefined purpouseless. of the three people that can understand you which of them has given a counter argument?

Ian Beardsley
December 5th, 2004, 01:40 AM
does this have anything to do with the fibonacci(sp?) numbers? the 'golden series ratio' that applies to spiral galaxies and rose buds? (1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,...)
On my website, the golden ratio crops up alot: http://project-genesis.org
Dimensions--a set tied together by a common ground, each element with a distinct quality from the other that together specify a series of concepts.
It is as if the five senses are the dimensionality of ourselves, and we exist in three dimensions, physically. Five and three are two consecutive fibonacci numbers, and their ratio is a good approximation to phi, the golden ratio (1.618..). Consecutive ratios of fibonacci numbers become closer and closer aproximations to phi. Eight, the fibonacci number after five, is the octet truss, or, stable brace. The next fibonacci number is thirteen, which is the twelve around one, or closest packing of equal radius spheres around one, which determines the most transformable shape, the vector equilibrium, or isotropic vector matrix...

Ian Beardsley
December 5th, 2004, 01:48 AM
art is purpouseless play - John Kage.

you my freind, have redefined purpouseless. of the three people that can understand you which of them has given a counter argument?

This is nothing compared to what my friend a nay player from Turkey does, (ancient Egyptian flute) who is also a visual artist. He made a ceramic flute that you fill with water, and every time you blow on it some water comes out. After he is done with his song he mops up the studio floor. The volume of the flute compared to the density of water is related to the length of the song. I don't know what volume he is using, but I am sure it has cosmological significance. In terms of your quote, I would say he really knows what art is about.

Ian Beardsley
December 5th, 2004, 01:53 AM
That's very interesting Otherside, what you said about ratios. Indeed they are connected with art. I immediately thought about Pythagoras, and his theory about everything in the universe being connected through ratios (bleh :blah: I don't know how to say that in English, but I think you all know what I mean). I find this fascinating and I too believe this. Come to think of it...isn't the whole universe just a big piece of art? ;)
Definitely, one scientist of years back, I forget who, said all of science is comparing ratios, forming proportions in other words. The artists of the renaisance had what was called a "golden compass" I believe, so they could use the ratio recurrent throughout their work. Whether or not nature is art might be up in the air since there are to date two schools: nature imitates art and art imitates nature.
Ian

Ian Beardsley
December 5th, 2004, 02:38 AM
[QUOTE=otherside]I've always held the opinion that life may exist soomewhere in the universe which doesn't use hydrogen, or nitrogen as its base blocks. What if a life form could exist on a basis that isn't protein based?

Perhaps you see art in the totals of your equations...or perhaps in the ratios?

Ratios are a big part of art but I think what you wrote falls somewhere between art and science. I call it science fiction.

I was also expecting a image. How would you represent this visually?

I can't figure out for the life of me how to add an image (JPG) or attach one to a reply.

stalecracker
December 5th, 2004, 02:55 AM
You can write out all that mumbo jumbo and can't add a picture to your post?!?
http://www.imagemagician.com/images/stalecracker/kitty.jpg
Is all I gots to say about that!!!

Commander Obvious
December 5th, 2004, 03:20 AM
I can't figure out for the life of me how to add an image (JPG) or attach one to a reply.

Here's a simple expression made up of 3 constants represented by the letters "F", "A", and "Q" meaning "Frequently", "Asked", and "Questions" respectively...

The units on the constants are in Hertz unless otherwise specified.

K(t) = C(FAQ*c)

where K(t) represents knowledge as a function of time, C(FAQ*c) represents a function of clicking the FAQ link, and c is the speed of light (which only applies to high-bandwidth internet connections).

In other words, get clicking, learn some new codes for conversing on .php web forums, and start posting visual art as per the status quo. :nohope:

Bence
December 5th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Anyone else got a headache while reading?
I almost failed in chemistry last year.

Lauren Short
December 5th, 2004, 06:09 AM
Here's a simple expression made up of 3 constants represented by the letters "F", "A", and "Q" meaning "Frequently", "Asked", and "Questions" respectively...

The units on the constants are in Hertz unless otherwise specified.

K(t) = C(FAQ*c)

where K(t) represents knowledge as a function of time, C(FAQ*c) represents a function of clicking the FAQ link, and c is the speed of light (which only applies to high-bandwidth internet connections).

In other words, get clicking, learn some new codes for conversing on .php web forums, and start posting visual art as per the status quo. :nohope:



haha, word

Ian Beardsley
January 12th, 2005, 04:35 AM
O.K. folks are complaining that I am not providing any drawings, well I finally figured out a way to create a link that has drawings. You can find my text and drawings at:
http://community-2.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/ConceptHabitat/
You will notice that I don't have a fine hand, like you folks. Awsome stuff you are doing. I was able to do this little bit, because my dad IS an artist, and I picked up a bit from him.
--Ian

Ian Beardsley
January 12th, 2005, 04:40 AM
O.K. folks are complaining that I am not providing any drawings, well I finally figured out a way to create a link that has drawings. You can find my text and drawings at:
http://community-2.webtv.net/ianbeardsley/ConceptHabitat/
You will notice that I don't have a fine hand, like you folks. Awsome stuff you are doing. I was able to do this little bit, because my dad IS an artist, and I picked up a bit from him.
--Ian
Notice that the curved family habitats are nomadic, while the regular tessellations family is European. What I call the Archidmedian family are what I would imagine an Atlantis would look like if it existed.
--Ian