Some views from application of the dimension model
The "dimension model", presented on this site
about physics, is tested on some - mostly elementary - astronomical
Many short files deals with our planetary system and is a search for more of an eventual, "dimensionally given"
order in the facts about distances, mass distribution and so on.
"Universe" is a word derived from "uni"
for unit 1, and "versum" comes from a verb meaning
"turn". "Universe" in Latin is said
to mean a "whole", actually = "directed toward
Freely translated then a unit which has
been inverted, turned inside out, becoming directed inwards.
It agrees rather well with the thought in the dimension
model that the universe of matter is born out of polarizations
and "inversions" of 4-dimensional vector fields
in complex combination of directions outwards/inwards, notably
just "directions". Masss and matter out of double-directed
forces or "meta-forces".
Universe as mass and vacant space could be thought of as
the "substances" in which underlying dimensional
processes work as structuring, organizing principle.
Space — between galaxies,
star clusters and stars:
the "exhalation" of Universe
star clusters and stars
the "inhalation" of Universe.
1. Levels of organization in macrocosm:
It may be noted in relation to the dimension model that
there are about 4 - 6 levels of aggregations in the organization
of visible matter in Universe.
Galaxy clusters Galaxies
Star clusters Stars
The 4 levels of mass centred aggregations and the 2 with
apparently "collective" gravitational origin may
generally be said to represent different kinds of relations
between Mass and Vacant space, implying different relations
between the gravitational and outward acceleration forces
FG and FA,
according to views in the model here.
Although the cluster levels may look as
intermediate steps, the relation (FA
/ FG) may at the same time be regarded
as structuring principles from opposite poles as from 0-
and 00-poles respctively corresponding to negative and positive
energy as -/+ E = mc2.
A proposed view:
a) Note the mass numbers, 50 - 41 - 30 (-32),
estimated figures in 1970th, before "dark matter",
black holes and other related aspects were sincerely discussed?
Planets about 1025, a
figure for 10-power in the middle of the chain.
The chain above could be compared with the mass relation
in microcosm, in the atom between protons and electrons:
most of mass in the nuclei, most kinetic energy in the electron
shells: superposed chain: 975 / 531 x103= 1836,16.
, about the p / e quotient:
b) Lower d-degrees represent manifolds in relation
to higher ones, which the suggested figure above could illustrate.
Hence, the figure above illustrates the synthesizing direction
from H-clouds and 0/00 inwards, not from Big Bang from 5,
the "whole". It's believed that most stars are
born in groups or clusters. (Perhaps also galaxies?)
c) Scientists point to the fact that polarizations
between mass and empty space as distance between the units
is the greatest for stars - in relation to size.
d) Note that there around our and other spiral galaxies
too are a spherical halo of star clusters as a kind
of "shell"; cf. step 2-1 in the figure. According
to one theory they are ejected from the galaxy centre.(More
e) Mean value densities; old, assuredly super-simplified
Here the figures relate to the aspect on clusters as intermediate
*(Stars on the main sequence.)
If the global star clusters (no data found) "originally"
had densities about 1018,
we should have the 10-power figures for densities from the
2x2-chain in d-degrees
32 — 18 —
8 — 2.
The 2x-chain has been hypothetically assumed
to be valid in inward direction of a dimension chain. Here
the exponents x = 1-3-5, for galaxy clusters, galaxies and
stars represent the three last figures in the odd-figure
chain, superposed the dimension chain with stars in the
f) The development of stars towards dwarfs and/or
neutron stars and perhaps black holes could be imagines
as processes downwards along a vertical axes through step
3-2 in the figure above - or in direction to the left, according
to the loop model of a dimension chain. (Se file Stars.)
g) A note to point f: The middle of the distance
scale between appreciated radius of Universe (also earlier
data) and the radius of an atomic nucleus (1026
is circa 10+5,5. This
value lies somewhere between white dwarfs and neutron stars,
which corrreponds to sizes between degeneration and total
collapse of the polarity proton-electron. Such a fact about
sizes and distances seems to couple with the underlying
level of main physical properties as assumed in this model:
Mass in relation to Charge as a relation 3 - 2 in d-degrees,
in microcosm represented by the transformation n → p+ + e- + ν.
h) About the middle step, it' also assumed that
the electromagnetic force (FEM)
in the dimension chain of forces is developed in d-degree
step 3 - 2. It could imply that the EM-force should be much
more dominating in the explanation of stars and their life
histories - if not in their origin too - than in galaxy
clusters and also star clusters.
If we look at the original vector fields and FA
- and FG-forces as
from opposite poles and directions, the figure below could
perhaps illustrate one aspect of the opposition between
clusters and mass-centred units. (The figure surely misleading
in other aspect.)
h) Regarding the changing relations between the
and FG on the different
levels, as a relative stepwise increasing separation of
Mass/Vacant space, a view opposite to that in the first
figure above is also possible:
The multi-centred clusters are characterized
by separation of centra, as divergence through the FA
-force (from original 0-pole), It's believed that most stars
are born in groups or clusters. (Perhaps then also galaxies?)
The typical centre - anticentre structures
of mass-centred galaxies and stars may be perceived as characterized
by the complementary FG
-force of convergence (from original 00-pole). (Cf. negative
and positive curvature in file Curvature...)
If higher d-degrees are associated with
dominating FA-force and
hence clusters, and mass-centred aggregations with dominating
FG -force in lower d-degrees, the
illustration of forces in the dimension chain looks like
An "haploid" dimension chain: (5 ~ 0,
centre; 0/00 ~ 00, anticenter.)
0 → 4 →
3 → ←2←1←00
A botanical view:
The organization of macrocosm could perhaps be compared
with different inflorescences, possibly founded in the same
geometrical laws! (It's a fundamental hypothesis behind
the model on this home page that the same elementary laws
should appear on all different levels of nature.)
An associative sketch of macrocosm including all types
of inflorescences for the flowers of matter.
The types could (at least from one viewpoint)
be dependant on differing relations (as angles) to the time
axis - or the degree of development of this axis. An attempt
to illustrate this is given in the figure below:
More or less figuratively it would also be
possible to imagine galaxies similar to branches from germs
in tree trunks of matter. Compare what astronomers observe
as "tunnels" of very hot matter in macrocosm.
(What makes some plant cells in the trunks develop to start
With another more or less metaphorical picture the galaxies
and stars could be perceived as the pips (seeds) in an apple
of forces (see the file about forces.)
The metaphor could be compared with the
fact that visible mass makes up only a few percent of all
"mass" according to the astronomers' theories.
Some decades ago the estimated lack of matter was ~3 %.
That's approximately the rest angle if we connect a dimension
chain with angle steps through 5 halvings. The other 97%
or whatever figure is actual now would be the fields as
for instance non-inverted FG
-fields. (About lacked "mass", se also here.)
A couple of very general hypothetical aspects:
One is that centra of fields as underlying level
in cosmos in some sense may be imagined as preceding mass
The other hypothesis, mentioned in other
files, is that -E = mc2, the field of negative
energy, the "vacant space", could have different
degrees of "emptiness" on different levels of
2. Fragmentation and aggregation of cosmic matter:
As said above it's believed that most stars are born in
groups or clusters. (If so, why not also galaxies?)
What then creates the multi-centre structures
in the gigantic H-clouds ?
(Could there exist correspondences with the - unknown?
- laws that define certain cells in embryonic cell division
to become the real embryo or pip, others just nourishment?)
One approach to the question would be the problematic
turbulence and how it's born with big whirls transformed
to smaller and smaller ones in streams... Another is the
surely connected theories about fractals from chaos
research. Here some other annotations, related to views
in the dimension model.
a) According to references the fragmentation of mass
in galaxies may be explained by "gravitational instabilities".
It's said that gravitation reinforces all inhomogeneities
in masses bigger than 105
times that of our sun. This corresponds to masses of bigger
global star clusters or small galaxies.
It's also said that if something disturbs
a cosmic cloud with homogeneous density, if a perturbation
occurs, it can spontaneously be decomposed in cool, denser
regions and hotter, thinner ones.
[This latter event sounds undeniably
as a contradiction to some fundamental thermodynamic law!]
(why they occur is not told), could in terms of the dimension
model be translated to a polarization in its most elementary
form: the creation of an internal difference - here within
the physical quantities Density and Temperature, assumed
as first and last properties defined in step 5→ 4 and 1 →0/00.
In the loop model they are connected through the view on
debranched d-degrees "meeting the other way around".
It seems remarkably in agreement with the dimension model,
this polarization, as into opposite polles or gradients
of Density and Temperature respectively,
The polarization implies that Direction
as such is created or defined within the cloud, perhaps
only through some irregularity in its environment, appearing
as the "disturbance".
b) When it's said that "gravitation
reinforces inhomogeneities" in these big clouds, it
could be the same as saying that it acts as a polarizing
force. This would also be in agreement with our model,
where the anticentre pole 00 is identified as first polarizing
force - in opposition to the 0-pole as first integrating
force. It's first in next step gravitation appears as "aggregating",
characterized by "circular" geometry (positive
curvature and in angle of 90° to a radial structure
from centre), first through d-degree step 4 →
3 in our model. If it should be called "gravitation"
in the first case may be discussed.
c) In a dimension chain of forces it has been suggested
that one of the two forms of weak
interaction, Fw1 (related neutrinos), is developed
with d-degree step 5 → 4
, hence connected with Dnsity as property, the other one
(Fw2, related anti-neutrinos) with step 1 ← 0/00, hence connected with Temprature. This should
imply that the first fform of gravitation could reveal relations
with first branch of weak interaction as partly originating
Compare a hypothesis among astronomers
that galaxy clusters may contain a sea of neutrinos,
leptons connected with weak interaction. That should explain,
they mean, the fact (regarded as a mystery) that galaxy
clusters seem to hold together by a gravitational factor
in spite of their velocities higher than escape velocity.
d) Now, if "gravitation" separate big
masses ≤ 105
solar masses), the question remains what acts polarizing,
fragmenting in smaller masses?
Could it be that M-fields have
a corresponding effect on this next level of fragmentation?
The magnet field have been assumed as representing the 00-character
in the electromagnetic force, complementary to the electric
field characterized by the 0-pole. Hence, the magnetic field
becomes related to the gravitational field but a factor
in next step in the dimension chain of forces: the electromagnetic
force assumed as developed in step 3 - 2. (With outward
acceleration, FA , and gravitation,
FG , developed in step
4 - 3.)
Cf. the propositions or observations of
what appears as "magnetic mirrors" or walls in
e) Fragmentation of masses as splitting up
of bigger entities and the aggregation of masses
into bigger units should reasonably be two simultaneous
processes, perhaps only different aspects on the same
processes, equally valid.
f) Other concepts in which to explain the fragmentation
of masses is interference and diffraction, related
According to our model, there should in
d-degree 4 of vector fields exist an 1-dimensional motion,
possible to identify as L-waves. As expression of the 5th
Hence, interference and diffraction, could
naturally be regarded as factors in the polarizing processes
which condense and attenuate, aggregate and split masses.
(Formally, according to the model, it's lower d-degrees
that create and maintain the potential of higher ones, acting
as polarizing forces, and ultimately the d-degree "0/00"
L-waves of enormous wavelengths
in underlying level of fields could eventually be responsible
for the polarization of Hx-clouds in denser cooler
areas and thinner hotter ones?
Compare too the observed, unequal distribution
of matter in cosmos with enormous empty areas of vacant
space between "highways" of several hundred thousands
of galaxy accumulations. Couldn't it point to an original,
radial pattern of interference and diffraction at Big Bang?
3. Galaxy clusters:
As said above the fact that the escape velocity of galaxy
clusters is found to be too big for the galaxies to keep
joined, yet they do, which have been a problem for astronomers.
Apart from the mentioned hypothesis about neutrinos adding
to gravitational force, the velocity of the clusters should
reasonably be an expression for the anti-gravitational force,
the expansion of Vacant Space, in this model the outward
acceleration force FA
In later years the FA
-force seems to be proved and the view recognized that it's
the "Vacant Space" that expand, carrying the galaxies
with it, not the galaxies rushing off by some own ability!
On this level of organization, the two
opposite forces could be assumed as being more anti-parallel,
balancing each other in another way than on levels of star
The same aspects could perhaps explain
why there is a limit for density within a certain volume
for galaxy clusters, not for star clusters: as another kind
of balance or equality between forces underlying Mass and
Vacant Space, derived from first 0- and 00-poles of d-degree
Geometry of galaxy clusters:
The clusters have after their forms been classified
in two kinds:
a. Regular, spherically symmetrical (concentric),
which much remind of globular star clusters. Elliptic galaxies
dominate, especially toward the centre.
b. Irregular, open groups or clusters, reminding
of open star clusters. This kind contains a lot of different
types of galaxies.
c. There are also galaxies ordered as chains, after
one another as in rows, in one example 5 galaxies, which
is said to be linked to one another "5 % of time"!
How this now should be understood?
Could it possibly reveal the assumed L-waves in the gravitational
field itself, a periodic change in both the FG-
and FA-fields? (From
step 5 → 4 in our model first
d-degree is debranched, corresponding to a step 1 →
0/00, giving first expression for Time, (elementarily radial
in this phase?).
Following figure could perhaps illustrate the different
types, concentric "waves" and radii for time-dependence:
In terms of our model we have radial and circular
as first geometrical identification of the complementary
poles of d-degree 3, that's how first forces manifest themselves
in a 3-2-dimensional cosmos.
The spherical clusters in the figure are
imagined as representing one and the same phase of time.
With the radii also representing Time, the open or "radial
chains" of clusters could naturally come to contain
different types of galaxies, connected with different phases.
Number of galaxies per group or cluster
is said to be rather evenly distributed from n x 100
to 103, a fact that the figure perhaps also could
illustrate and shed some light upon.
Astronomers' question if galaxies or galaxy clusters have
been created first may have an ambiguous answer: The creation,
if by two complementary forces, may have been simultaneous.
According to astronomers the different forms of galaxies
do not represent phases in the development of individual
galaxies. They could presumably instead represent different
generations, older and younger ones - as human societies
of older and later times. It should imply that it's the
geometries and other general conditions of underlying fields
or forces that changes with development of Time?
The forms of galaxies, ordered from highest to lowest
content of gas and dust, could also illustrate features
of geometry in d-degree steps, as suggested in the figure:
1-0/00 irregular blue galaxies
2-1 Spiral galaxies
or staff galaxies
4-3 Elliptic galaxies
5-4 Globular ?
- Globular, spherical galaxies are not mentioned
in the reference. If they exist,
content of gas and dust?
Could the galaxies lately detected around
quasars eventually be of this kind? Ball-shaped galaxies
could be interpreted as the form of the polarity 0 -- 00,
centre/anticentre from a step 5 →
- The elliptic form then in next step 4 →
3 could be the result of polarized centre or focus, a transition
form. In terms of motional patterns they also illustrate
an intermediate form between "linear" vibration
and rotation, motional forms in d-degrees 4 and 3 according
to assumptions in this model.
(One could associate to the forms of s-
and p-orbitals in atomic shells, from spherical to more
elliptic forms - or sooner drop-formed. Or rather perhaps
from the quantum
numbers n to l .)
This elliptic form with two focuses has
led astronomers to propose that these galaxies are results
of two colliding ones, a perhaps possible but not necessary
hypothesis with the interpretation above.
See also about Lissajou's figures below.
There seems to be much "dark matter" in
elliptic galaxies according to the quotient mass / luminescence.
A general suggestion - as a guess - in this model is that
the astronomers' calculations of mass have come to include
also "pure" gravitational fields, not yet transformed
into the property mass and further to atomic matter.
(Perhaps through some torque in one coordinate axis at its
way to a tangential or circular one!?)
(About lacked mass also
in Physics, special addition about matter and space, and file x1, some short thoughts.
There are much of cool K-stars in elliptic galaxies,
which indicates less kinetic energy and accordingly higher
d-degree of structure, interpreted in line with the model
Stars in elliptic galaxies are typically
of high age too. Small elliptic dwarf galaxies have been
resembled with the globular star clusters, which also are
oldest among these.
Old age implies as it seems a long time
to cool down through radiation.
If a linear Time is regarded as starting from d-degree
0/00 of Motions in our model, the elliptic galaxies have
existed a long time:
00/0 —> 1—>
2 —> 3 --> (4)
Problematic questions here: It's easy
to think that older galaxies should be nearer to Big Bang
in some sense. The temperature at Big Bang is estimated
to the enormous amount of 1032
Yet the elliptic galaxies have these
many cool stars. (A similar problem is the finding that
molecules, demanding lower temperatures, seems more common
towards the centre of our galaxy.)
It's reasonable to ask to what the temperature
of 1032 degrees is attached,
before any matter has been created? To radiation? If so,
another definition of temperature seems used than the
one used for particles. Does it really make sense to talk
about "temperature" at Big Bang?
Could the view on cold and heat as two
perpendicular coordinate axes (file Temperature)
eventual give an answer to the problem? If gravitation
(FG ) is presumed
as connected with the y-axis and Cold as gathered, more
equal velocities, and the outward acceleration field (FA
) with the x-axis and Heat as greater spread of velocities
- Lens-shaped galaxies seem given from the circular
rotational movement in d-degree 3. with mass less or more
gathered in the rotational plane. Hence here regarded as
a form in d-degree step 3 - 2. Some of them are among the
(The fertilized egg is first globular
and becomes later lens-shaped. Although this may be regarded
as an internal development of an individual egg, and individual
galaxies don't develop in this way, sooner represent generations,
also the embryonic development passes as through phases
or generations of historical, biological development.)
- Spiral galaxies as our own, with denser or looser
winded "arms" demonstrate an intermediate form
between rotational plane (d-degree 2) and the "linear"
arms, i. g. d-degree step 2 - 1, also to perceive as expressing
the more wavy character of lower degrees. (The number of
d-degrees transformed into motions increasing towards lower
The hypothesis about "pressure waves"
which should maintain the structure of the spiral arms,
seems quite compatible with our model.
Spiral galaxies have also a halo, a spherical structure
of old globular star clusters, which could be regarded as
reminiscence of - or expression for - the underlying 3-dimensional
structure? (See below.)
The Milky Way:
- Irregular blue galaxies with most of gas and dust
should then be regarded as the youngest. As less structured
characterized by most motional movements. They also often
lack a centre, a core. Hence here identified with the step
(Cf. the development of blood systems
through history of biology from islands to chains to tubes
to curved tubes and hearts as centres.)
About beam or staff galaxies, their central
masses remember of lens or spiral galaxies but have forms
like beams or staffs. A suggestion here is that they eventually
could be interpreted as formed from the other end of a dimension
chain, by the patterns of motions: One expression for a
3-dimensional motion is the spiral, a superposition of rotation
an linear pathway motion. A mass structured by such a motion
could look like a staff or a beam.
A last natural question:
If the different shapes of galaxies not are phases in the
development of a galaxy but different "generations"
(as shapes of star clusters below), and the last generation
here is the irregular ones, what comes next, what
about the future? Pure Chaos? Or perhaps only dispersed
star clusters ?
Could eventually Lissajou's figures, given by phase shifts
in oscillations of particles in two perpendicular directions
simultaneously, be used for interpretations of galaxy forms?
The particles replaced by waves, perhaps the assumed L-waves
in FG - and FA
In the second quadrant of a coordinate system, with opposite
signs (+/-) on y- and x-axes, it give in projection the
circular →elliptic →linear forms with increasing phase shift from 90°
to 135° to 180°. With this aspect the relation between
forces should already have developed to the perpendicular
one in d-degree 3 in our model, in angle steps to 90°,
and the electromagnetic forces developed in step 3-2, FE
and FM , could be involved.
Phase shifts implies more or less of separation in Time
- as different positions in the "graticule" of
Many features in galaxy clusters appear too in star clusters.
Here two generations are identified;
I. The oldest, ball-shaped clusters, about
1010 years old
II. The younger ones, open clusters, 106
- 108 (?) years.
Stars in the open clusters are born at the same time but
have different life times. It's said that they move parallel
to divergent and disperse slowly, one star on about 105
(Hence, the same is perhaps valid for
the irregular galaxy clusters - on another time scale?)
Why the old globular star clusters as spherical halos around
spiral galaxies? A rest from an earlier, more spherical
galaxy, disappeared and replaced by a spiral type? Or "collapsed"
to one? It sounds difficult to imagine. Some other astronomers
seem inclined to interpret the halos as incorporation of
small elliptic dwarf galaxies. Expressed in static geometry
it could manifest the connection in the loop model of our
dimension chain here between elliptic galaxies as formed
in step 4 → 3 and spiral
galaxies in step 2 ← 1. Cf. the very first figure of this file above,
illustrating proposed view on different levels of organization:
Geometrically the halos are 3-dimensional - in extension
- but also 2-dimensional as "shells" on a macro-scale.
The halos could just reveal this geometry at d-degree 2
(with outer poles 3a and 3b in the model); the spiral galacxies
getting their geometry in d-degree step 2 - 1.
As a matter of fact, all three of the
explanations suggested by astronomers could be supported
by this purely geometrical interpretation: star clusters
of halos as ejected from galaxy centre (pole 3b, radial),
collapse of a global form to the flatter spiral galaxy,
and with the connections between steps 4 →
3 and 1 ← 2 in
the loop model also the theory about star clusters as incorporation
of small elliptic galaxies.
It sounds undeniably that there has
been a change between generations in the relation between
gravitational and the outward acceleration forces FG
and FA, a change in their
relative strength (or angle?): FG
the stronger force in earlier times, (time axis here
starting at d-degree 0/00): FA
more dominant in the younger period and generations
of galaxies? (As older, authoritarian societies have
been replaced here and there with more open and democratic
or individualized ones!)
About multi-star groups, it's said that of all stars
in our galaxy 1/3 to 1/2
(different estimations) belong to double or multiple star
groups. It's not clear if these numbers say anything about
an (eventually dimensional?) process. How many of the lonely
stars may have left the multiple systems through divergent
dispersion, if so, during the life time of our galaxy? And
are perhaps these star groups parts from more rich star
clusters, separated through divergent dispersion?
Figures of multiple systems from the sources used here,
illustrating fragmentation of mass (presumably smaller
A splitting up in 2-3 steps in these examples, which eventually
could reflect the number of polarizations in the loop model
of a dimension chain (?).
The systems remind of embryonic cell divisions
in higher plants into cells with different roles, as antipodals,
pole bodies and synergids and the ovum.
a) We could eventually identify shapes of the two "generations"
with the geometrical polarity circular versus radial out
of d-degree 3 polarized. Regarding the circular form derived
from the end of a ("haploid") dimension chain
(its 00-pole) and lower degrees, the radial form derived
from centre and higher degrees, it should imply that the
Time axis - for aggregation of matter - would start at the
end of the chain, in a certain agreement with our model.
(For creation of matter, with a Time axis used "backwards",
it should also agree with the assumed extremely high temperature
attributed Big Bang when all there is is kinetic energy,
last step to 0/00 in our model.)
b) It's usually said that stars farthest away from us (and
objects as quasars) reveal the oldest macrocosm of matter,
since light has taken the longest time to reach us. What
says however that not the opposite should be the truth for
an inhabitant of those stars? The light from "us"
needing an equally long time to reach them.
The critical radius for a certain mass is calculated
x C x M
C = gravitational constant, M = the mass
For our sun this critical radius should be about 3 kilometres.
The density then would be as high as 1046
If the formula would be applicable to Universe as a whole,
and using the older estimation of total mass, about 1050
kg, (~1077 u), the critical radius
of Universe should be ~1023, (100
times our galaxy), i. e.. about the extension of a galaxy
cluster (?) and the density only about 108
Including "lacked" mass and
an estimation of a mass 100 times the one above, Rs becomes
about 1025, one tenth
of the radius of Universe as it was estimated four decades
In any case it seems to fit in the scheme
in first figure, with galaxy clusters as highest level of