Galaxies as atoms.

I constantly have questions for myself,
as well.
It’s an evolving concept that’s slowly emerging.

Think of the Universal Fractal as layers of differently-sized
marbles. The galaxies are the big marbles, from where we are,
and then the atoms are the marbles of the next size down,
which is 10^31 times smaller than galaxies, at 10^-9 meters in diameter.
Atoms make up galaxies.

Then, there is a third layer of marbles, the ones making up
atoms, at 10^-40. They are invisible to us,
because our emr can’t resolve that size.

When we get out into Space, where there
is one atom every cubic meter, the REST of the Space
is not empty, but is actually composed of these
smallest marbles.

Just thinking

For a while, I entertained the idea of a fractal universe.

Atoms seem to have similar properties to galaxies and solar systems, but not exactly the same. Perhaps the cosmos is only partly fractal. It repeats itself, as you go from small to big, big to bigger, or vice versa, but the repetitions aren’t identical, there’s significant changes each time, and after a while, you wind up with something completely different. So there’s no drastic change, but gradual, incremental changes. Also, if atoms are akin to galaxies and solar systems, if we go bigger, will all these galaxies and solar systems add up to something like the middle world, something like the world we live in, where objects and lifeforms wander around electron planets? What are galactic filaments, is there more to them than meets the eye, what’ll they add up to, are they some sort of fibers?

You mean, if we go
bigger, where is the Carbon atom which is
probably what the Milky Way is?
We seem to be in some kind of reaction.
There are two Hydrogen atoms quite close and a number
of others in the cluster, and Andromeda is
coming straight for us. We will then
be C2HsomethingOH, perhaps.

Here’s how gravity works in this scenario:

There is a flow coming into
the Earth from all sides that
is absorbed by protons.
Less of this flow comes out the other
side because of this absorption, so
there is a gradient towards the center
of the planet.
Where does the energy come from?
From all the electrons in the Universe,
which are constantly radiating it.
Where does the energy go?
Back out to the electron of the
proton that absorbed it, so that its electron
can continue to radiate.

It’s a fractal, cyclical Universe

Cool idea. How do you visualize this energy that passes between electrons and protons? What is it?

Size is completely relative, if we are to look at the issue logically. “Big” and “small” are objectively meaningless, an atom is huge compared to a sub-particle, a star is tiny compared to a galaxy, etc. If size is relative, and also space and time are relative, which we know they are, then following that logic through without artificial bias or restriction we are left with a picture of reality that is, if not “fractal” (it very well might be) then at least like an infinity of Russian dolls, extending outward and inward in all directions without limit. Which actually makes sense, because on what basis ought we conclude there to be an absolute limit upon reality? If you think about it, the idea of a limit, edge or “end” of reality is entirely illogical.

Space-time is probably a pure mathematical construct, an infinite geometric matrix on which, at every point to varying degrees, graft “forms”, basic relations, that we think of as fundamental particles or symmetry field-energies. But it gets even more interesting, because the infinite geometric matrix itself becomes, at sufficient relative distances/sizes/times, a sum singular point of energy, form or light, i.e. viewing a portion of reality which itself is sufficiently smaller or distant in space or perhaps also in time from one’s own portion, we can only experience or measure this other portion as a “point” of fundamental energy or form. At first these points would appear heterogenous, shifting their energy or location in minute ways, then as certain greater relative distance is attained they would be seen to homogenize, become pure static potentials, either existing or not, “jumping into and out of existence”; at still sufficiently greater relative distances these points would appear to vanish entirely from existence, they would be absolutely unknowable to us.

Thus, by virtue of what we are as such-and-such kinds and scales of beings, there are subjectively-imposed, relative limits to reality, or rather to our potential experience of reality. It would be a logical mistake to assume these limits are objective, are a part of reality itself.

Yes!
Totally!! Size is relative! There is no biggest because bigger is bigger!
Let’s drink beer

The energy coming from all the electrons is the same as neutrinos, but on the next level down.
Each electron is like a galactic arm of stars, in which there are 50 billion stars or something,
and they just do their star thing, fusing and releasing neutrinos. What are neutrinos?
As far as I got so far, which is pretty vague, they are some kind of standing wave of
matter at the next level down which appears to us to be pure spin. Anyway-
this energy corresponds to neutrinos.

There is a whole 'nother emr including neutrinos at
each level. The electron is radiating- but at far higher frequencies
than any photons we deal with, because the finer matter from which
electrons are made vibrates at a far higher frequency.

And what do the points symbolise? Electrons? Galactic arms?

Size is actually not completely relative. The universe has a limit concerning sizing and all things conform to that limit, else nothing could exist at all. It is much like, and related to, the speed of light. It is a limit determined by the logic of the situation.

Hello, James. Do you know, wether Helper means that these 8 points in each of the four pictures are symbolizing electrons and galactic arms? Helper said: „The energy coming from all the electrons is the same as neutrinos, but on the next level down. Each electron is like a galactic arm of stars, in which there are 50 billion stars or something, and they just do their star thing, fusing and releasing neutrinos.“

The following is he said before: „Here’s how gravity works in this scenario: There is a flow coming into the earth from all sides that is absorbed by protons. Less of this flow comes out the other side because of this absorption, so there is a gradient towards the center of the planet. Where does the energy come from? From all the electrons in the universe, which are constantly radiating it. Where does the energy go? Back out to the electron of the proton that absorbed it, so that its electron can continue to radiate. It’s a fractal, cyclical universe.“

A cyclical universe is what I would like the universe „to be“.

I’m pretty sure that he means those points to be electrons. As much fun as it might be, I don’t believe in the fractal theory and have substantial reasons not to. And I don’t follow how the rest of that theory is supposed to work concerning gravity at all. He’ll have to explain it to you.

Anyway, thank you very much, James.

May wishes come true or not. I don’t know, whether the fractal theory is right, but I would like it to be.

You know, there are much motions in the universe, and I believe that this motions are cyclic or spiral - both in nature and in culture (incl. civilisation).

Realize that the physical universe contains absolutely no geometric forms at all. Geometric forms are entirely a cartoon image within the mind and can never exist in the physical world expect as an average over an infinite amount of time.

There are cyclic motions, such as a electrons and planets orbiting. But even those are not as simple as thought and taught. An electron does not follow any specific path. It is guided by the precise field surrounding it (of which is it actually made). It never really takes the exact same course in all of its uncountable orbits.

I know that, James, but it is just my favourite model - not more. Geometric forms are also used as models or patterns. Mathematics can make happy, but not as much as music because music is the best. Now mathematics and music are reminding me again of Pythagoras and some posts:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185313&p=2460946#p2460946
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185313&p=2460946#p2460974
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185313&p=2460946#p2461028
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185313&p=2460946#p2461067

Arminius said: Geometric forms are also used as models or patterns. Mathematics can make happy, but noct as much as music because music is the best.

Arminius, let me explain- 85% of spiral galaxies show a warp on each side ( and they
can’t see the rest well-enough to determine ).
Now- if my theory is to be correct, this means that galactic discs are
PRECESSING as well as rotating- which would cause the disc to
sweep out a sphere over 250 million years or whatever.
And they have recently measured how long electrons take to come back
to where they started: about 150 attoseconds. So that would be how
long it would take an atomic disc to turn once.

So, if you have a disc of electrons precessing once every 150 attoseconds,
it will look very much like a sphere.

Now, we know the diameter of the Milky Way, and we know the
diameter of a Carbon atom, so let’s compare:

Does 250 million years divided by 150 attoseconds
EQUAL
10^22 meters (dia. of Milky Way)
divided by 10^-9 meters (dia. of Carbon atom) ???

And, if you appreciate music, please listen to
this new song by a young artist
youtu.be/lTciiXHNkTE

Great song.

physicsworld.com/cws/article/new … d-accuracy

Here’s the reference for the electron’s cycle
as being 150 attoseconds.
Now, 250 million year, approximately, is the time
it takes for the Milky Way disc to rotate once.

So, since their diameters are 10^22 (approx) meters and
10^-9 (approx) meters, then, obviously,
the approximate ratio is 10^31.

Okay, 225 milion years = 7.9 X 10^15 seconds
and 150 attoseconds = 1.5 X 10^-16 seconds

So, by division, we get 5.3 X 10^31

Voila

Well done, but my question refered to your pictures, namely: what do the points symbolise? Electrons? Galactic arms?

And by the way this pictures too:

Help me, Helper!

Thank you.

The points represent where an
electron or a galactic arm would
go if it were part of a disc that
is both spinning and precessing.
In both the above pictures, the
disc spins once every time it
precesses once- in the Benzene
animation, the disc spins once
every time it precesses twice.

So the answer is: YES, the points represent electrons and galactic arms.

Thank you, Helper.

Great pics though, aren’t they.

Thanks, James!

I had an idea this model with one
rotation every two precessions could solve the Benzene ring thing,
so I started with this:

I had to make a number of educated guesses:

all the rings are always parallel, i.e. they all
precess the same way at the same rate

neighbouring discs always face the opposite direction,
rotating in opposite directions,
which means when their edges come together they will be
going the same way

I found that when placed in a hexagon, the edges come together
in 30 degree increments, i.e. like a clock face with numbers
1 through 12

I designated the clock face, when facing
the viewer, to be going clockwise.
So, I started all the discs with the 12 at the top,
and every second disc to be facing (and rotating)
the opposite direction. When the edges come together,
it is the same number on each disc, and I turn those numbers
from red to blue.

Notice- adjacent discs contact each other FOUR times
in one cycle- C3 and C4 connect at numbers 1, 4, 7 and 10

over and over and over…