[yor_on]

You've made a nice presentation of your thoughts here I think. As for dark matter I don't know, and I'm not even sure if I trust in it existing? Dark energy though? But you have two 'sub spaces' if I got you right? Why two? Are you thinking of one as QM and the other as a complementary to 'strings'?

[Phractality (OP)]

You've made a nice presentation of your thoughts here I think. As for dark matter I don't know, and I'm not even sure if I trust in it existing? Dark energy though? But you have two 'sub spaces' if I got you right? Why two? Are you thinking of one as QM and the other as a complementary to 'strings'?

I am skeptical of the claimed quantity of dark matter, but I also doubt we can see 100% of what's there. The mainstream estimates are based on the assumption that Newton's universal law of gravitation is absolutely perfect at all distances and that there are no other forces at work in the dynamics of rotaing galaxies. Very shaky assumptions!

I don't think I have used the term "sub space"; I do refer to our universe, a super-universe and a sub-universe, but those are just three in an infinite fractal sequence. The cosmic foam of each universe is the ether foam of the next.

Our universe has but one ether. It is the medium of waves; waves are the substance of fundamental particles, and larger particles are built up from fundamental particles thru a succession of strange attractors. I don't know a lot about strngs, but my uneducated guess is that they are just a complex mathematical analogy for attractors. They remind me of Ptolemy's orbs within orbs.