The Scale of the Universe

[EEthmane]

http://htwins.net/scale2/

[NoY]

That was cool 


:NoY:

[Lionheart]

 That definitely was cool. Now maybe we see some locales we are reaching while Phasing/Astral Traveling. That zoom out feels exactly what I perceive for real in some of my experiences. It's like you have been launched out of a cannon!  
Thanks for sharing!  

[Firmitas]

AWESOME

Thanks for the post
-Firmitas

[Szaxx]

Hi,

Fancy a guy making a standard length that SMALL.
What a Planck.

[Fourthdimension]

so objects in our galaxy orbit round our sun because of its mass and density? and depending on the element mass is most likely to increase with size? or is that just my illlogical assumption ? If what I wrote correct then isn't it only logical for our sun to orbit around obejcts bigger than it? and according to the website there is lots of things in our galaxy bigger than our sun. it makes sense that galaxies dont orbit each iother because they aren't compact and the objects in each galaxy are far apart and I can kinda grasp the concept that if space can be compared to a piece of paper(am not saying paper is anything like space) then when a large object is  placed on the paper it makes a dent which could be compared to a planet and if space could be compared to the paper then a planet would make the same kind of 'dent' and the perimeter of its dent is the stretch of its gravitational pull? but then if space was heavier than the object it would not make a dent this could be compared to dropping an object lighter than wood onto a plank of wood which makes no depression or dent but if its heavier than wood it creates a 'dent' so how do they no that space is not heavier than the heaviest object in our galaxy because 'space' is just a name and an assumption? it is logical to conclude that because we orbit the sun that the sun is heavier than 'the space' around it but then its also an assumpton to conclude that just because it is logical in its assumption. if multiple little objects such as lots of tiny stones wgich are really small are scattered on a piece of paper then it no longer creates a big dent but instead creates lots of tiny dents and if the dents of two stones meet then the smallest stone slides too the biggest stone and the speed of this movement depends on the mass difference and the greater the mass of the stone the faster it slides and if the stone thats greater in mass was spinning and the stone smallest in mass hadnt came into contact with the other stone it would continue to move closer until they did come in contact if the velocity it was spinning was fast enough so why dont objects in our galaxy do that why doesnt objects which meet in there 'dents' not begin to get closer together? and  if lots of little stones were scattered on a piece of paper in groups with great enough distance apart they dont move towards each other due to mass so  both groups wouldnt meet and if this can be compared to galaxies in our universe why would they move closer together if the gravitational pull of galaxies never came into contact?

if there is no gravity in space how can there even be mass and if 'space' was an object and not thought of as void then 'the space' and the object would never touch because there would be no gravity and no mevement so both object would be suspended and not touch nor move?

I know that i used a stupid comparison and lots of assumptions

also it is said that if one particle moves at one side of the universe that at the same time a particle moves on the opposite side of the universe.....does that not mean that there is no opposite side and the reason both particles move at the same time it is because the universe is a  circle and not flat and that there isnt two particles just one?

also if you imagine a beaded bracelet the beads only move closer if the string was pulled stretching the circle and creating space and then the beads only move because of gravity and only if they bracelet wasn't placed on a flat area so then if the universe was  compared to the bracelet and beads compared to galaxies then would the  universe  have to be hollow with a force stretching it from the inside / if it wasnt hollow would it  have to have a force stretching a piece of it from the outside in order  for the galaxies to move ...there would have to be some type of gravity to allow the movement and would it not have to be on an angle or not flat to also produce the movement?

if the universe was a circle  would that not then mean there would have to be something 'sticking' the universe together so it is a circle or maybe a force outside the universe causing it to bend into a circle and not loose shape. if there was a force doing that then that would mean there would either have to be mass or more 'area' outside the universe producing the force

can anyone tell me if am making sense or if what am saying is wrong or rigfht? logical or illogical?

i loved the link to that site thanks eethemane
p.s  ERIDANUS SUPERVOID is believed to lead to a parelle universe according to that model on the site and if universes are parelle does that not mean there has to be an area outside the universe so they can reside parell to one another?