Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

That’s a good question, actually. I don’t know what it could mean.

This is an interesting topic, hopefully someone more scientifically knowledgeable than I am will contribute. I’d like to read along.

The universe may be finite, but the multiverse would be infinite. The “multiverse” consisting of numerous types of parallel universes has been postulated by theoretical physics. In my speculative OP, these parallel universes or planes of existence are really scales of existence. Objects, be they liquid bodies, solid objects, or gas clouds in our experience are each and every one a universe where the component atoms are separate galaxies. This allows for the notion of infinite existence although the component universes would be finite.

I think the trend is growing in the same direction as it proceeded in philosophy, i.e. absolutes are only such relative to human perception and experience. However, that fact does not in my view plunge all knowledge into a meaningless and unknowable relativism. As I feel with ethics and philosophy, absolute for the purposes of our experience in the natural sciences is still powerful enough on which to serve as a suitable axiom for what can follow deductively. We can still use truth statements but in the back of our minds just know that they are just “true enough” for human perception and experience. Time is absolute enough to allow us to keep schedules and expect that 8:00 PM means the same for all of us.

Unfortunately, your assertion relies on the premise of an atom just being one big red bubble.

Pure Hand waving??? lol Pure Hand clapping instead! Congratulations mate, you’ve just discovered what that Bible refers to as “Heaven”…
One of the many hidden stories within the meaning of the Tabernacle, reveals implications of this profound truth…
This is not were i discovered this, but a book where you may gain great insights from is: Temple At The Center of Time, by David Flynn.

Regards,

youtube.com/watch?v=zEJ9V9iR0xU

youtube.com/watch?v=VaaosPgQJXE

youtube.com/watch?v=tKuOC9-rrkA

There is much - much more…

Felix states:

Is this really true, or is it that humans need a constant, a fixed point of reference, in order to make sense of the universe? The universe may not need a “fixed” anything. This isn’t an attempt to offer the tired dismissal of “everything is relative”, and yet, one has to ask relative to what? (the implied constant). The tremendous knowledge generated by science is, and always will be, “relative”. Why? Because humans are never without a perspectival point. That perspective is conditional and provisional get’s lost in the discussion shuffle.

I tire of the “think outside the box” crap. We create the box and everything in it. There is no “knowable” outside the box. The universe could care less about our explanations, our constructions. It just IS.

The OP may be unconventional thinking, but it is no more correct or incorrect than any of our “close counts” explanations. It is a “Horton” explanation, well thought out and refreshing.
This is one of the best threads I’ve seen in a looooong time.

Space-time is absolute according to Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The absolute space-time of special relativity provides something with respect to which objects can be said to accelerate.

Yes, and the explanation seems to hold when considering “normal” space. But then there are black holes where science has to admit that the laws of physics “may not apply”, which is another way of saying that we may know a lot, but we don’t know all. We tend to dismiss “anomalies” as if they aren’t important clues that there may be more to know than what we think we know.

Consider the field of fluid mechanics. There was no more science to be discovered, everything was known and explained and dealing with problems was relegated to plugging in the correct formulas. And then chaos theory came along and those dismissed anomalies so long ignored became important. There was order in chaos that provided new insight that added new layers of questions and answers in a field that had been assumed completed knowledge. Our constructs may be 99.99999… infinity, and pragmatically that’s close enough, but we should never lose sight of the possibility that just maybe…

Ever since I too thought of this possibility long ago I have loved it. While pretty speculative, we are also told that size is relative just as mass, time and velocity are. And of course it cannot be ruled out logically - it implies no contradiction. So perhaps there is something to the idea - either way though, it is quite poetic and beautiful to think about, and really expands and boggles the mind :smiley:

What laws of physics? Black holes were predicted by general relativity before there was any empirical evidence for them. Black hole are not anomalies. E=MC squared applies to them.

On this website it seems to me, people are more likely to lose sight of the 99.99999 probability and look for an infinitesimally small margin of error. That’s where they hope to find wiggle room for their theory.

Felix,

It is one thing to predict a black hole, and quite another to KNOW what happens inside of it.

Science is all about removing the margin of error in our knowledge, but error is error no matter how small. What you call “wiggle room” is just another admission of not KNOWING.

What exactly do you want to know? According to “A Brief History of Time: From Big Bang to Black Holes” by Steven Hawking published in 1988 quite a bit was known about black holes then. More is known about them now.

You said black holes the laws of physics don’t apply to black holes. Well, they were predicted because they operate lawfully according to the law of general relativity. So in what way don’t the laws of physics apply?

Felix,

I haven’t the slightest idea what works or doesn’t work inside a black hole. No one else does either. We know a great deal looking at the outside, but nothing of what is possible in the inside. there is lots of conjecture and a number of possible theories, none of which are testable. Not only do we not know, we don’t even know how to know. Maybe some time in the future…

But all that is beside the point. All I was trying to get across is that even science skips over tiny insignificant details that later prove to be more than significant. Knowing is a tough business.

No idea? Speak for yourself. Others have plenty of ideas. The ideas are not “conjecture”. They are products of inference from the laws of physics, just as was the original prediction of the existence of black hole from General Relativity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole If that isn’t enough information about what is known about black holes for you, I have a half dozen books I can recommend.

I get your point. But in the process of making it you suggested that the laws of physics do not apply to black holes. There is no evidence of that that I am aware of. It’s one thing to assert that there are things we don’t know. That, of course, is true. It’s another thing to assert that we don’t know what we do know. In that case, the question is, how do you know?

What if you are just a thinly disguised spammer?

Edit: Thank you for deleting the spam. Now it looks like I’m talking to myself. :laughing:

Many people have thought of this, but would be very hard to prove, and yes if the universe extends infinitely outward then it would most defenitely extend infinitely inward, so for me it would be easy to believe that the different levels of existence would be relative to size. BUT the day people start believing that we are surrounded by universes in our atmosphere thats possibly filled with life similar to our own, will be the day shit hits many fans

Is not all things reflective of each other, re. the op…

It’s certainly imaginitive,creative, and a illustrative picture of the universe from the original poster of this thread ( artistic even) but, what are the basis for us to believe in it?

Take the basic principles of the Scientific Method. It always starts with a hypothesis. Where does the hypothesis come from? Interestingly, there is no rigor placed on the standards for a good hypothesis; the only rigor is in supporting it. It was this conundrum (where does the hypothesis come from?) that sent the protagonist of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance down the road of insanity.

At best this can only be a hypothesis or model in which I feebly take a few tenets of theoretical physics an explain them in the context of this model or hypothesis.

I am surprised this thread has had some (relatively) recent posts tied to it. For some the idea seems to resonate, for others it does not. Wouldn’t it seem that many philosophical tenets that are widely accepted are ones that produce a sufficient amount of “resonance” with a substantial number of the right people? I always wondered what is the “foundation” or cause of this resonance. Maybe it’s the same question as the cause of a hypothesis. In the modern world I see philosopers of science as the better hyopthesizers and model makers, and some of the best models out there in theoretical physics seem to be as much philosophy as science.

I have been working on the “Galaxy Model for the Atom”
for a long time. Just recently I solved Benzene using it:
users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

The Universe is fractal in nature, and
based on the atom-galaxy.

An electron is a spiralling arc of stars and planets extending
from nucleus to atom’s edge containing radiating bodies at all
their stages all the time. Fully fused material falls
back into the center and is split back up by adding neutrinos, somehow,
and then shot back out the jets.

Electrons not only radiate, it is their
radiations filling the universe and being
absorbed by our protons that causes gravity.

john

It’s a cool idea.