Introduction:

"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 a point".
   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.

          Vacant Space — between galaxies, star clusters and stars:

                      = the "exhalation" of Universe

          Galaxies, 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 (solar systems)
                                     Planets
                                         Moons

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 suggetions below.)

e) Mean value densities; old, assuredly super-simplified figures:
Here the figures relate to the aspect on clusters as intermediate levels.

*(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 4-3-2-1:
32 — 18 — 8 — 2.

The 2^x-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 middle step:
                                           
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 — —10^-15) 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 forces FA 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 F_A-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 this:

An "haploid" dimension chain: (5 ~ 0, centre; 0/00 ~ 00, anticenter.)
0 → 4 → 3 → ←2←1←00
divergence         convergence
   Vdiv                    Vconv
 clusters           stars - galaxies

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 for brnahces?)

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 centra.
   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 organization.

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!]

"Inhomogeneities", "perturbations", (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 from it.
   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. (See below.)

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 cosmic space.

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 to waves.
   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 dimension.
   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" of motions.)
   L-waves of enormous wavelengths in underlying level of fields could eventually be responsible for the polarization of H^x-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 clusters.
   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 5.

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.

Galaxies:

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                                     Beam- or staff galaxies 3-2 Lens-shaped 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 → 4.

- 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 another file.)

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 here.
   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)
       now                        then

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 degrees.
   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 of particles?

- 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 flattest.
   (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 d-degrees.)
   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 1-0/00.
   (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 ?

Lissajou's figures:

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 -fields?
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 Time (Hoyle).

Star clusters:

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 years.
   (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 H^x-clouds?):

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.
———————————————————

Two notes:
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 to:

         2 x C x M
Rs = ————
               c²

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 u/m3.

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 u/m3.
    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 ago.
   In any case it seems to fit in the scheme in first figure, with galaxy clusters as highest level of organization.