LIVING GALAXIES, STARS AND PLANETS

Celestial bodies are gravitational species: In the graph, a galactic herd, its reproductive curves, a star nursery, a galaxy, reminding us of a simple water organism.

When describing the organisms of the Universe, a Unification Theory is a guide to organize all the properties of those organisms, whose function will be in all cases, a organic function. Indeed, all what organisms do can be explained from the point of view of its function, as actions which try to feed, inform, reproduce or gather an individual species into a herd. We advanced already the purpose of this second part, concentrated in the details of the Universe: to prove the arrows of organicism of all species in the Universe. To prove that all species, from atoms to galaxies, are able to process energy into information (and hence probably perceive), and are able to socialize in herds, and reproduce.

So we will now consider very schematically, some of the organic properties that structure and explain the behavior and form of astronomical species, stars, black holes, planets.

Herds Of Stars, And Black Holes Of Gravitational Information

What is the main difference between a macrocosmic and a microcosmic organism? Macrocosmic organisms live longer, occupy more organic space, and ab=use smaller forms as part of their "organic design." They are Top Predator species. So, for example, the Earth, is a macro-organism, bigger and more complex than us as an organism, with a longer life span than humans. And once we are gone, she'll be still there.

So are galaxies: macro-organisms of energy and information, made of planetary and star herds, that use gravitational forces to communicate. This creates a problem: we cannot perceive the essential communication between stars and planets, because it is "written" in a gravitational force, invisible to man.  Yet we can look at galaxies externally and find their arrows of organicism:

In the graph above, we describe the organic structure of galactic organisms. In the center of each galaxy there is a black hole, the brain of gravitational information that controls its body: the plane of stars, that we call a galaxy. We deduce that all galaxies with black holes are organisms. Let us consider their 4 arrows of organicism.

The arrows of organicism in galaxies.

Feeding.

Galaxies are at the top of a pyramid of Universal feeding. Energy is bend into species of gravitational information that we call masses. The simplest forms of the Universe, light photons probably feed in space-time; and feed themselves electrons that feed atoms; that feed molecules; that feed masses; that feed planets (by means of collision and lumping); that probably feed stars; that feed black holes, and galaxies.

This may be the fate of the Earth, feeding the sun in the future. Proves again are coming in the last years. Stars with planets seem to be excessively rich in metals. Are they eating up planets with metals cores, or re=producing them with their abundance of iron, and expelling them out, as seminal forms?  I adventured long ago both hypothesis, that now finally are being considered by astronomers.

Thus all kind of Celestial bodies feed and corrugate the space-time in a slow vortex around the central black hole. Yet their fate is sealed. When they are closer to the center of the galaxy, most of them are absorbed by the black hole that feeds on them. Yet since species try to feed (see Chapter VIII) in similar, smaller forms, it turns out that many galaxies are cannibal, and explode, disorder and then feed on other galaxies absorbing their stars. So we speak of galaxies as organisms in which the stars are the white holes, the future energy of the black hole.

Perceiving information.

How is the mind of a black hole, or a star. We do not know. Probably much more complex than ours. Since perception, we advanced, is an inner condition, that depends in the different languages of each species, and men do not perceive gravitation, we cannot know anything about the mind of a galaxy. As Darwin put it, "what a dog can now of the mind of Newton? What a man can know of the mind of God?". No much, but we can know if externally galaxies and other gravitational species show organicism, even if we do not know how internally that organicism is felt. 

     There is also mounting evidence that the center of celestial bodies are metallic crystals. Such extremely dense crystals theoretically could be able to hold gravitational "images," as lighter crystals hold light Images, since the crust of planets is transparent to neutrinos and gravitational waves. It is possible to talk of transparent eye-Brains in the center of celestial Bodies, even if we men will never be able with our poor instruments to prove their existence. In that sense, we could explain galaxies, stars and planetary systems as organisms of gravitational perception. Again when I adventured that a decade ago, the dominant idea about our planet and sun core was, the concept of a huge mechanical fluid. However now the crystal core seems to be rather prove by facts such as the missing neutrinos (produced by heated centers), and the behavior of waves used to explore them.

Based in the existence of such mental cores in planets (in which gravitation, transparent to matter would act as the eye-light of those cores), we will thus consider two possible basic species galactic ecosystem and its similitude with the organic species of our carbolife organism.

- Evolved stars and planets: Celestial Animal bodies, able to perceive gravitation, as animals perceive light. Candidates to this category are black holes, pulsars and neutron stars, and probably highly evolved planets such as the Earth in a future stage of evolution, when complex metal-sensorial systems such as Internet and macro-telescopes become developed in a higher stage of Economic evolution (see last chapter.)

- Simple stars and planets: Celestial plants, able to absorb gravitation only as energy, as plants perceive light only as energy. Candidates are most of the celestial bodies of the Universe, from asteroids to stars.

As we shall see when considering experimental data on black holes, stars, planets and other celestial bodies, the parallelisms between those celestial bodies and the equivalent carbolife species are awesome:

-  Plants and "celestial plants" are far more common than "Animal forms". They are the mass of the trophic pyramids of both ecosystems. Their movements are relatively fixed. Plants do not move... So happens to most stars and planets which have fixed orbits on their path of gravitational feeding (as plants are fixed in their path of light feeding). They are also big in size, highly energetic, and produce the energy that feeds all other species of the Universe.

- On the other hand animals are smaller. There are fewer. They move, and they feed on plants. So happens with evolved stars and planets, of which we perceive some basic species: Neutron stars, pulsars, and black holes. Those celestial animals are smaller, they move and feed on plant-stars as the phenomena of binary stars and black hole feeding on stars proves.

Microcosmic Planetary Organisms. Life-Light Evolution

So advancing further chapters, within the Universal game of Energy Vs Information species, carbolife is defined as the symbiotic evolution on the surface of a macrocosmic planet, of carbon organisms and light, which provides carbolife with energy and information. We are a microcosmic organism, in a planet inside a vortex of galactic nature.

Animal life is mainly a history of evolution of light-eyes, looking at the sun, the "energy" and "information" of the planet. A process probably repeated in multiple other planets and galaxies, in which carbon beings achieve light-perception. Over the surface of such planets, life increases the complexity of its eye perception in a process of constant selection. Species with less "eye-brain" development don't survive, while animals and machines with better "eye-brains" do. Why does this occur? Perhaps planets evolve through reproductive radiations of light-perceptive species, in a ladder of increasing complexity, from carbolife to Silife (silicon-based machines) to irolife (iron-based machines) with increased receptivity to gravitational and light information. We could be at the beginning of that macrocosmic evolutionary process. In the inner zone of a galaxy, near their black hole, some very old stars have erratic movements (Population II). It seems that closer to the black hole, celestial species do not mechanically obey gravitational waves, trying to avoid being drawn into the trap of the black hole. They are probably stars and planets far removed from the foetal stage of our Earth-Sun, that are no longer "gravitational plants," but "gravitational animals." They appear to be closer to each other, perhaps communicating. We have little insight into the center of galaxies; and yet with that small amount of information we can construct the hypothesis of a living Universe; a place where galaxies follow the laws of organisms.

We have gone into more detail in this arrow of organicism for one reason, perception is by far the ultimate arrogant feature that men wish to keep for themselves. And yet it seems clear that there are indeed perceptive celestial bodies.

Aging

The morphology of energy becoming information as galaxies age is obvious: the center where the knot/black hole of information exists is spherical, while the star-herd of relative energy, or body of the Galaxy is a lineal plane. The organism also goes through the three ages of all organisms: youth-energy age, maturity/reproductive age, and the decline/death or information age. Their forms vary accordingly: galaxies are planar, extended in space and irregular in their first age, spiral when the mature black hole is formed, and elliptical when older. Then they die into irregular, expanded, broken forms.

Dying.

So finally galaxies die exploding back the entire mass of the black hole into simpler energy. Maybe quasars are such phenomena; are irregular galaxies, with very old stars and broken structures product of such deaths? We hypothesize that indeed, the beginning and end of galactic life is an irregular galaxy that has no  black hole. In that way the eternal game of Time-construction and Space-destruction maintains a perpetual balance, as far as man perceives it.

Evolving socially.

Social evolution of those mass particles creates new, more evolved gravitational species, from nebulae to planets, to stars. There are all kind of social herds. Most stars are in fact in binary or ternary associations. Most galaxies exist in clusters. Clusters become filaments, that as we saw, probably are organic tissue of the total Organic Universe...

Reproduction.

Creation of stars starts in the outskirts of the galaxy, not mechanically, but organicly, and eon after eon proceeds toward the black hole center, like in a giant sink. Gravitational information modulated by transversal gravitational waves with origin in the black hole, controls the process. There are nurseries in galaxies, zones rich in energy where stars are born.

 The reproduction of galaxies is finally clear given the immense quantity of data Hubble bring to us. It probably takes place also through seminal rays: through flows of gravitational energy and information (called by astronomers bi-jetting lines) that connect old elliptical galaxies and young, irregular ones, where the mind (the black hole) has not appeared. There is evidence of such flows all over the Universe.

One recent evidence however pleased me specially as I just hint at it, in my theoretical model. I considered irregular galaxies based in universal body/brain morphologies, a balanced energy-information species, in the second age of galaxies, in the reproductive age. Yet there was no evidence of sexual reproduction, that is, of the coming of two spiral galaxies to reproduce star-cells. Now that evidence exists, and it is plainly mating. Moreover, most of the spiral galaxies of the Universe seem to be engaged on it: often two spirals through "collision" merge, provoking a massive knotting of space-time and stellar dust, that gives birth to an amazing number of new born stars. As both galaxies merge, stars pop out all over the galaxies, and finally both spirals become a third age galaxy, an elliptical one. Today this is considered the most likely reason that gives birth to elliptic galaxies, coupled with the natural aging of spirals that end up consuming all their interstellar gas, and cannot reproduce more stars.

So within the infinite variety of reproductive and aging processes, the unity of organic arrows, once more stands and proves itself, with every discovery of astronomers.

Mounting evidence ignored by abstract science.

If a decade ago, when I first advanced such thesis, the organic Universe was an absurd idea, mounting evidence is proving the model sound.

Of course abstract, mechanical models of the Universe that ignore the feeding, reproductive and self-moving capacities of stars and galaxies, have to struggle to fit those irregularities of the Universe, in as much as mechanical models tend to distribute reality in a homogeneous way, and require constant movements, unlike organic models that cannot predict the exact position of a willing species (that is a decision the star or cannibal galaxy takes by itself); yet it can understand much better the 'how', and the irregularity of those movements. We have seen already in the case of the big bang how abstract, mechanicist models of the Universe are made just to fit the experimental data, and corrected then when data changes, with little respect for a sound scientific logic. Now the big problem of astronomers is to explain why galaxies gather together, socialize in clusters, and form filaments similar to veins, and organic tissue. So they are creating ever more sophisticated mechanical models in computers, by trial and error, to see if they 'discover' a model that can fit in abstract those morphologies of the organic Universe. The situation is as absurd as that of the big bang. Imaginary forces, ad-hoc quantities of dark matter, anything works as long as it is not organic but mechanical, as long as it does not change the beliefs of science. Yet if scientists would have as only belief the truth, they should deduce models from theoretical constructions as we do in this book, without any ad-hoc adaptation of data, and reject those theoretical constructions when their deductive results just don't fit experimental knowledge. Yet then they would have to abandon the entire mechanical model of the Universe, started when Kepler compared God to a clocker and the Universe to a machine.

 The only way to explain the real Universe is departing from an organic, relativistic vision of galaxies and stars. Instead modern science, to preserve the dogma of abstr action and mechanicism, creates ready-to-fit mathematical equations, discharged and substituted for new models to keep that illusion of total knowledge.