Are Galaxies part of something larger?

Watching this video you notice we see tons of what seem to be endless stars then we break out of our galaxy... We then keep going and our galaxy gets smaller and then the galaxies start to look plentiful and then the video stops...

Is there an edge to space or is the edge just another huge galaxy of galaxies? Have we seen past the galaxies?

I think we've gotta be in some kind of organism. Galaxies clump together to form huge structures that look suspiciously like neurons. And have you ever noticed how our solar system is vaguely reminiscent of an atom?

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by chromatico


Wow very interesting... You know you might be on to something here... That would mean there would be other clumps of galaxies and might also explain the strange organism things we see in our skies... Man wouldn't that be a trip to be part of a large brain...

*yawns*

Yeah, okay. you keep thinking in them three dimensions dude.

I think they found out that the are part of something larger....
Its called the universe!

Originally posted by Throbber
*yawns*

Yeah, okay. you keep thinking in them three dimensions dude.

What other dimensions should I be thinking of exactly? Am I not a three dimensional being? You nor me nor anyone could think in any other dimension unless we are from the dimension... I guess it would all depend on how you look at dimensions too... Are other higher dimensions where beings exist in the 3rd dimension like we do or are they 4th and 5th etc. dimensional beings?

Take this into consideration as well... Everything we look at as microscopes/telescopes become more powerful, we find new smaller more distant things... Zooming in to look at something to me is the same as zooming into our universe... As we search further out in the universe we find more things... Using common sense I would have to say that everything continues in both directions large and small infinitely...

Are you a personal believer in something I don't know about? Have you experienced other dimensions... ? Please explain what you mean by your comment... Thankx...

The poster who referred to the neural appearance of galaxy clusters, i think, speaks volumes. Yes, they do indeed appear dendritic or neural.

So, the old "chicken or the egg" question comes back into play. Unless we have evidence, the debate will take place philosophically only.

But you do have to wonder, seriously, if the dendritic formations are an artifact of a larger structure, or simply a manifestation of the fractal universe?

I mean, you see many, many other shapes repeated as well. Phi is a common one. And Pi can only be determined via a static cause and effect relationship within the realms of physics.

So, it would seem that shape appears to be MUCH more controlled by natural properties than anything else. I see very little connection between a nautilus and a moth, until i realize that moths approach the flame in a pattern than can be charted along a Fibonacci sequence.

Matyas truly understands the concepts of sacred geometry (or, at least far enough beyond me that i perceive him to know all). Perhaps you should query him, get his input.

Yes theoretical physicist now are thinking in 11 dimensions. (M-theory)

Basically saying that ALL possibilities for the universe can and do exist, depending on what dimension from which you View it. And gravity maybe is just trickling through to our universe from other dimensions.

How far down the rabbit hole do you care to go?

And then there is the anthropic principal: The cosmic version of “If a tree falls in the woods, will it make
A sound if none are there to hear it”

So the short answer to your post is Yes.
source
From Michio Kaku

Leaping to higher dimensions can also simplify the laws of nature. In 1915, Einstein changed completely our notion of gravity by leaping to the extra dimension of time. In 1919, the German mathematician Theodor Kaluza added a fifth dimension and in so doing unified space-time with Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. This triumph was largely forgotten amid the frenzy of interest generated by quantum mechanics. Only in the 1980s did physicists return to this idea to create superstring theory.

"Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size" - Albert Einstein

Today's excitement has grown from the finding that if we postulate the existence of a mysterious M-theory in 11 dimensions we can show that the five competing string theories are actually different versions of the same thing. Like a Roman general surveying the battlefield from the third dimension, physicists today stand on the hilltop of the 11th dimension and see the five superstring theories below, unified into a simple, coherent picture, representing different aspects of the same thing.

Tracking lion
The first step towards this advance came two years ago when Witten and Paul Townsend of the University of Cambridge showed that Type 2a string theory in 10 dimensions was equivalent to M-theory in 11 dimensions with one dimension curled up. Since then, all five theories have been shown to be equivalent. So at last physicists know where superstrings come from : they originate in the 11th dimension from M-theory.

To see how this all fits together, imagine three blind men hot on the trail of Einstein's lion. Hearing it race by, they give chase and desperately grab at it. Hanging onto the tail for dear life, one feels its one-dimensional form and loudly proclaims, "It's a string. The lion is a string." The second man grabs the lion's ear. Feeling a two-dimensional surface , he calls out "No, no, the lion is really a two-brane." The third blind man, hanging on to the lion's leg, senses a three-dimensional solid, and shouts , "You're both wrong. The lion is a three- brane !" They are all right. Just as the tail, ear and leg are different parts of the same lion ,

Just to add the last and most important part of his Quote
From the same source:

the string and various p-branes appear to be different limits of M-theory. Townsend calls it "p-brane democracy".

Of course, the subtlety of the above post will be lost on some that read it, the OP
Not withstanding.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Zeptepi]