20151021

Infinite Universal Hierarchy





Blog 20151021 Infinite Universal Hierarchy

Luis writes:

Given the infinite hierarchy nature of the universe, is it possible that the portion of the universe we can observe with our telescopes is itself inside a particle at a larger hierarchical scale? Might we, for example, be inside an organism or other object at this larger scale? (and likewise, might out bodies be composed of stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters etc if we "zoom in" sufficiently?)

[GB: Luis, I must admit that I was taken aback particularly by your two last questions—not that I have not heard of that whimsical idea before. Of course, in our book “Universal Cycle Theory,[1]” Steve and I used the work of Kashlinsky and others[2] to propose that the observable universe was a tiny portion of what we dubbed “the Local Mega-vortex.” Others have used that work to propose “multiverses,” “parallel universes,” or some kind of “great attractor.” According to Big Bang Theory, all galaxy clusters should be moving outward. However, Kashlinsky showed that galaxy clusters had a preferred direction of motion, which could indicate that they are in orbit around a massive object outside our observable universe. Our speculation, which is in tune with the hierarchical/vortex nature of the rest of universe, just carries the reasoning one hierarchical step beyond what we can observe directly (Figure 1).

Now to the fanciful part… I cannot imagine that there is any way of knowing whether your conjecture could be true. However, per relativism, all larger and smaller microcosms in the infinite universe must have some similar and some dissimilar characteristics. We see much repetition and quasi-duplication in each step of the hierarchy. Each type or class of microcosms demonstrates infinite variety, but not infinite number. For instance, we assume that no two snowflakes are identical and that their forms display infinite variety. Nonetheless, we do not assume that there can be an infinite number of snowflakes. If that were true, the universe would consist of nothing but snowflakes. We assume instead that there are an infinite number of classes. These develop precisely because of relativism. Each microcosm contains an infinite number of submicrocosms in motion and exists in a macrocosm that contains an infinite number of supermicrocosms in motion. The univironmental interactions between microcosm and macrocosm produce the infinite variety we see all about us. Each type of microcosm is continually in motion, evolving per univironmental determinism, constantly changing into something else, just like the snowflake that turns into water in the springtime and the gravel that turns into sand as it is pummeled in the raging water.

With relativism, we essentially are assuming that none of these microcosm classes would be repeated exactly as we go up and down the hierarchy. Whether they would be repeated similarly is unknown. My guess is that each step in the infinite hierarchy is so different from all the other steps that the univironment produces unique microcosms at each step.]


 
Figure 1. Cover of "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," showing the observable universe rotating around the “Local Mega-Vortex (LMV).” We base this partly on observations that galaxy clusters are flowing in a preferred direction, as if they were affected by some sort of “Great Attractor.” This is one of the reasons that Big Bang theorists had to invent their oxymoronic “multiverses” or “parallel universes.”


[1] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/ ].

[2] Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A Measurement of Large-Scale Peculiar Velocities of Clusters of Galaxies: Results and Cosmological Implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, no. L49–L52.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html

Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html