Fractal Cosmology is the Wheel of Heaven corpus's name for the spatially self-similar structure of the cosmos across an infinite hierarchy of scales. The framework holds that the cosmos exhibits self-similarity across scales, with the same fundamental patterns of organization recurring at every scale of examination, indefinitely in both directions without finding any bottom or any top. Its source warrant is the Yahweh-delivered passages in Extra-Terrestrials Took Me to Their Planet (1975) and the later Raëlian material; the corpus adopts fractal cosmology as a technical designation because the structure aligns with the fractal vocabulary Benoît Mandelbrot was developing in the same period the material was delivered. It is the spatial dimension of the broader Infinity framework, with the \nMass Effect\n framework as the corresponding temporal dimension.
\nThe framework's central image is the source's formulation: \"The Earth is but a particle of the atom of the atoms of the hand of a gigantic being, who contemplates a starlit sky which composes the hand, the stomach or the foot of a being even more gigantic, who finds himself under a sky, etc., etc., ad infinitum.\" The observable universe — the galaxies of the night sky, the cosmic microwave background at its furthest reach — is, on this reading, a fragment of a single atom in the body of a vastly larger being we cannot perceive, who is in turn one figure in a still vaster world of countless such beings. The pattern runs the other way too: the atoms of our own bodies contain beings whose worlds we cannot perceive, all the way down without bottom. The corpus takes this not as poetic metaphor but as cosmological description — the same patterns of organization (gravitational structure, particle and energy interactions, the emergence of life and consciousness in suitable environments) recurring at scales that differ by staggering factors.
\nThe reading is interpretive construction. The Raëlian material supplies the cosmological content — the infinite hierarchy, the recursion in both directions, the same patterns at every scale — without the mathematical vocabulary. The term fractal was coined by Mandelbrot in 1975 in Les objets fractals: forme, hasard et dimension, after Raël's December 13, 1973 first contact but contemporaneous with the October 7, 1975 second contact at Roc Plat; the corpus applies it retrospectively to content that predates its general availability.
\nThe English term \"fractal cosmology\" is the corpus's designation for the framework, joining fractal (the mathematical category of structures exhibiting self-similarity across scales, coined by Benoît Mandelbrot in 1975) and cosmology. It is corpus-internal: the term does not appear in the Raëlian source material, which supplies the cosmological content — the infinite-hierarchical structure, the recursion in both directions, the same patterns at every scale — without the technical vocabulary. The corpus applies fractal cosmology retrospectively to that content.
\nFractal was coined by Benoît Mandelbrot in 1975 in Les objets fractals: forme, hasard et dimension (Flammarion, Paris), from the Latin fractus (broken, fragmented), naming a category of structures characterized by self-similar repetition across scales. The chronology aligns closely with the Raëlian source material:
\nThe corpus reads this alignment as evidence for the source material's coherence with mathematics developed afterward, without requiring the material to have used the vocabulary.
\nThe source material uses no single technical term; its phrasing is descriptive:
\nAcross these, the framing is consistent: an infinite-hierarchical, self-similar cosmos in which each scale contains the next below and is contained by the next above.
\nRelated terms operate within the framework:
\nThe corpus uses Fractal Cosmology as the principal designation, drawing on the alternative phrasings where they are clearer, while acknowledging that the source material predates the mathematical vocabulary.
\nFractal Cosmology overlaps with several contemporary mainstream positions while extending well beyond what mainstream science has established.
\nMainstream cosmology rests on assumptions the framework engages directly.
\nThe cosmological principle holds that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic at sufficiently large scales — no preferred locations, no preferred directions above some threshold. It licenses the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric in general-relativistic cosmology, grounds the standard ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model, and underpins the Big Bang framework.
\nThe Big Bang event is dated to roughly 13.8 billion years ago on multiple lines of evidence (cosmic microwave background measurements, large-scale-structure observations, primordial nucleosynthesis calculations). It marks the start of the observable universe's expansion; what preceded it is either non-existent or some pre-Big-Bang state, depending on interpretation.
\nThe observable universe boundary is the cosmic horizon set by the speed of light and the time elapsed since the Big Bang — about 93 billion light-years in diameter (the gap between the 13.8-billion-year age and the 93-billion-light-year diameter resolved by expansion). What lies beyond is undecidable from within our observational position.
\nThe framework diverges from each of these positions.
\nIt rejects the cosmological principle. Rather than smoothing toward uniform, isotropic distribution at large scales, the cosmos on this reading approaches further hierarchical self-similar organization — each scale revealing further structure. The homogeneity assumption is treated as empirically contestable rather than foundational, and contemporary fractal-cosmology work has contested it (treated below under Modern reinterpretations).
\nIt reframes the Big Bang as at most the beginning of our observable region, not of being itself — analogous to the formation of one cell within the body of a larger being: a real event with real antecedents and consequences in its context, but not the absolute start of existence.
\nIt reframes the observable-universe boundary as the limit of our current observation, not of being. The cosmic microwave background and the horizon mark what we can currently see, set by light-speed and elapsed time; the broader structure extends indefinitely.
\nThe framework accepts that mainstream observations (cosmic microwave background, large-scale-structure surveys, primordial nucleosynthesis) capture genuine phenomena within their domain, while reading the wider cosmic structure as lying beyond that domain rather than against it.
\nSeveral mainstream proposals posit multiple universes:
\nFractal Cosmology is distinct from all of these: its structure is hierarchical-self-similar (the scales contain one another) rather than parallel; its recursion is indefinite rather than a finite set within a containing structure; and its content — the same physical patterns and the emergence of life and consciousness at every scale — differs from these proposals. The relationship is one of categorical distinctness rather than variation.
\nMainstream science has documented self-similarity across domains:
\nThe framework's structural content is consistent with this work, while its cosmological reach extends beyond it.
\nThe framework's primary sources are Extra-Terrestrials Took Me to Their Planet (1975) and Let's Welcome the Extra-terrestrials (1979).
\nThe principal passage appears in the \"Neither God nor Soul\" section of Extra-Terrestrials Took Me to Their Planet (1975):
\n\n\n\"You also know that we have discovered that there is organized, intelligent life on the level of the infinitely small, quite certainly as evolved as we are and comparable to what we are ourselves. We have been able to prove this.\"
\n
\n\n\"From there, we have discovered that the stars and planets are the atoms of a gigantic being, which itself certainly contemplates other stars with curiosity. It is also highly likely that the people living on the infinitely small levels of the infinitely large person and his fellow creatures have known periods when they believed in an immaterial 'God'.\"
\n
It establishes four points. Intelligent life at every scale, from the infinitely small (the atoms of our atoms) through human scale to the gigantic being of whom the sun is an atom, each comparable in evolution to what we are at our scale. An infinite-hierarchical structure, each scale containing the next below and contained by the next above, with no findable bottom or top. The \"everything is in everything\" principle: \"You must fully understand that everything is in everything. At this moment in an atom of your arm, millions of worlds are being born and others are dying.\" And the cross-cultural recurrence of the cosmological situation — the same situation that produced Earth's religions has presumably produced comparable traditions at every scale, each civilization developing religious content responsive to its scale-position.
\nThe framework's central image appears in the \"Who Created the Creator of the Creators?\" FAQ section of Let's Welcome the Extra-terrestrials (1979):
\n\n\n\"Once we have attained sufficient open-mindedness, we can understand that in space the Earth is but a particle of the atom of the atoms of the hand of a gigantic being, who contemplates a starlit sky which composes the hand, the stomach or the foot of a being even more gigantic, who finds himself under a sky, etc., etc., ad infinitum. The same process applies for the infinitely small. On the atom of the atoms of our hands, there exist intelligent beings for whom these particles are planets and stars, and these beings are composed of atoms of which the particles are the stars and the planets on which there are intelligent beings, etc., etc., also to infinity.\"
\n
The image is symmetric. Downward, the atoms of our hands contain intelligent beings whose atoms contain still smaller beings, indefinitely. Upward, Earth is a particle of an atom of an atom of a gigantic being who is one figure in a vastly larger world, indefinitely. There is no privileged scale and no asymmetry between the directions, and the source's \"etc., etc., ad infinitum\" and \"etc., etc., also to infinity\" register the recursion as open-ended rather than fixed at any number of levels.
\nThe same FAQ section develops a thought experiment:
\n\n\n\"Science is always progressing, and the inhabitants of our phalanx are now at the level to launch always more audacious space explorations. They finally reach a new frontier, the bone of which their planet is but an atom of an atom. This way they can be sure that the universe measures so much by so much. The proof is that, after that point, there is nothing more to be observed.\"
\n
\n\n\"A little later they succeed in crossing the immensity which separates the bone from the muscle, and their universe gains new dimensions again.\"
\n
\n\n\"They improve their space-ships and finally reach the layer of skin which covers our finger. They have reached the end of their universe, which measures one-and-a-half centimeters by our scale, but was many light-years for them.\"
\n
Its points: cosmic distance is scale-relative (what measures 1.5 centimeters at our scale is many light-years for beings on the atoms of a finger); every observed cosmic boundary is provisional (the mini-world's scientists mistake each structural layer — bone, muscle, skin — for the edge of their universe); and the principle applies recursively to us — what we currently take for the cosmic boundary may be the limit of our observation, not of being.
\nA further passage in \"Neither God nor Soul\" draws the corollary:
\n\n\n\"No argument aiming to support the existence of any type of god or soul can be sustained when we glimpse, however briefly, at the infinite nature of the universe. No heaven could exist in any particular place because, since the universe is infinite, it cannot have a center.\"
\n
An infinite cosmos can have no center — center is defined relative to a bounded region, so \"where is the center?\" is like asking \"what is north of the North Pole?\", a well-formed question whose presupposition does not match the reality. It can have no boundary either; the boundaries mainstream cosmology recognizes (the observable-universe boundary, the Big Bang horizon) are boundaries of our observation, not of being. And a personal supernatural deity in the conventional sense has no cosmic location to occupy — a God who exists \"somewhere\" and intervenes \"from somewhere\" becomes impossible within the framework.
\nThe framework sits within a wider source-material cosmology: the Mass Effect framework as its temporal complement, the Cosmic Chain operating within it, and the Infinity framework as the precondition within which both operate. The Cosmic Chain's \"no first creator\" position is the temporal-recursion correlate of the spatial recursion articulated here.
\nFractal Cosmology combines several components.
\nSelf-similarity. The cosmos exhibits the same fundamental patterns of organization at every scale:
\nHierarchical scope. The relationship runs across the whole hierarchy:
\nSymmetry. The pattern runs the same in both directions: no privileged scale, no cosmic center, no cosmic boundary.
\nBeyond mere self-similarity, the framework specifies what recurs.
\nPhysical patterns. Gravitational organization (atoms and electrons echoing solar systems and planets, solar systems echoing galaxies, galaxies echoing intergalactic structure), particle-and-energy interactions, and the emergence of complex organization from simpler components (cells from molecules, organisms from cells, planetary systems from stellar systems) recur across scales.
\nBiological and cognitive patterns. Life and consciousness emerge at each scale within suitable environments; the intelligent civilizations at each scale develop their own science and self-understanding, each discovering at some point that it is one of many and approaching the responsibility of contributing to life-creation at further scales.
\nReligious and philosophical patterns. The religious and philosophical content civilizations develop presumably shows common patterns reflecting the common cosmological situation — the source's claim that beings at other scales \"have known periods when they believed in an immaterial 'God'\" — varying by cultural-historical context but converging in broad structure.
\nFractal Cosmology is the spatial dimension of the corpus's cosmology; the Mass Effect framework is the temporal dimension. Fractal Cosmology sets the infinite-hierarchical-self-similar structure; Mass Effect supplies the time-scaling relationship within it — subjective time per unit absolute time scaling inversely with mass or scale. Neither is complete alone: the spatial structure without the temporal scaling, or the scaling without the structure. Together they form a unified cosmology, both contained as dimensions within the broader Infinity framework.
\nThe framework's mathematical status is openly incomplete on several points.
\nThe fractal dimension. Fractal structures are characterized by non-integer dimensions — the Mandelbrot set's boundary has fractal dimension exactly 2 (topological dimension 1, the boundary area-zero in the Hausdorff sense), the Cantor set log(2)/log(3) ≈ 0.631, the Koch snowflake log(4)/log(3) ≈ 1.262. The framework specifies no dimension for the cosmological structure; the literature proposes values near 2 for galaxy-distribution analysis, contested, while the broader hierarchy is not formally mathematized.
\nThe scale-relationship parameters. The qualitative pattern (each scale containing the next down) is established, but the quantitative ratios between successive scales are not specified.
\nThe discrete-vs-continuous question. Whether the hierarchy proceeds through discrete scale-levels or continuous variation is unspecified. Mainstream physics treats scale continuously (renormalization-group analysis), while the source material's articulation suggests discrete levels (atom, cell, organism, planet, star).
\nThe recursive-pattern specification. The recurring patterns are described qualitatively (gravitational organization, particle-energy interactions, life and consciousness) but not quantitatively.
\nThe corpus registers these as open rather than resolved; formal mathematization remains a future project, while the qualitative content stands on its own.
\nThe framework has consequences across domains.
\nHuman civilization is not unique — it is one of countless intelligent civilizations distributed across the hierarchy, which diminishes traditional anthropocentric claims about humanity's cosmic significance.
\nIntelligent civilizations are distributed across the hierarchy rather than concentrated at any scale; the Cosmic Chain framework operates within this distribution.
\nCosmic-origin questions are reframed. \"What was there before the Big Bang?\" becomes \"what is the broader structure within which our observable region operates?\"
\nCosmic-boundary questions are reframed the same way: \"what is beyond the observable universe?\" becomes the same structural question.
\nTheology is reframed. A supernatural deity existing and intervening \"from somewhere\" becomes impossible; the Raëlian position — the Elohim as creators of roughly human scale rather than infinitely-large divinities — fits the framework's constraints.
\nCosmic-meaning questions are reframed. The \"infinitely indifferent\" cosmos differs from both supernatural-meaning frameworks and secular nihilism; on the Four Levels framework treated in the Cosmic Chain entry, meaning operates at the levels of Elohim, human society, and individual self while being absent at the level of the Infinite.
\nFractal Cosmology is load-bearing across the corpus:
\nvs. mainstream Big Bang cosmology. The framework rejects the cosmological principle and reframes both the Big Bang and the observable-universe boundary as features of our region and our observation rather than of being, while accepting mainstream observations within their domain.
\nvs. the Mass Effect framework. Complementary dimensions of one cosmology — Mass Effect temporal, Fractal Cosmology spatial — not rivals, both operating within the broader Infinity framework.
\nvs. the broader Infinity framework. Fractal Cosmology is one dimension (the spatial-hierarchical) within Infinity, the wider cosmological precondition.
\nvs. mainstream multiverse proposals. Hierarchical-self-similar rather than parallel; indefinite recursion rather than a finite set within a containing structure; and the same physical laws at every scale rather than laws varying between universes.
\nvs. mainstream complex-systems theory. Consistent at the empirical level with work on self-similarity and scale-free networks, but extended through the cosmological-hierarchical claim including life, consciousness, and cosmic civilization.
\nBenoît Mandelbrot (1924-2010) developed fractal geometry as a recognized mathematical field across the 1960s-1980s, producing the vocabulary the corpus's framework uses.
\n1975 — the term fractal. Les objets fractals: forme, hasard et dimension (Flammarion, Paris, 1975) introduced the word and the first systematic account of the fractal-mathematical framework, drawing on Mandelbrot's prior IBM work on irregular phenomena (cotton-price fluctuations, telephone-line transmission errors, hydrologic patterns, geographic features). It did not yet include the Mandelbrot set.
\n1980 — the Mandelbrot set. Mandelbrot's 1980 work at IBM defined the set of complex numbers c for which the iteration z_(n+1) = z_n² + c (starting from z₀ = 0) does not diverge to infinity. Its cardioid, attached circular bulbs, and self-similar boundary became one of the most culturally visible mathematical objects of the late twentieth century.
\n1982 — The Fractal Geometry of Nature (W. H. Freeman, 1982) gave the principal popular-scientific account, extending the 1975 work to the Mandelbrot set and to the fractal structure of natural phenomena (coastlines, mountain ranges, lung-bronchial structures, river networks, cloud structures, lightning patterns).
\nThe chronology is striking: the vocabulary the corpus uses to articulate the source material's cosmology (1975-1982) was developed contemporaneously with the material's delivery (December 1973 first contact, October 1975 second contact, 1979 published cosmology). The corpus reads this as evidence of the material's coherence with mathematics developed afterward.
\nContemporary cosmology has produced a body of work on fractal structure.
\nLuciano Pietronero (Sapienza University of Rome) has argued since the 1980s, from galaxy-distribution data, for fractal structure at intermediate cosmological scales. The Coleman-Pietronero analysis (Paul H. Coleman and Luciano Pietronero, 1992) held that the data showed fractal structure rather than homogeneity-and-isotropy at the largest scales — a claim contested since. Yurij V. Baryshev treats hierarchical and fractal cosmology, including Discovery of Cosmic Fractals (with Pekka Teerikorpi, World Scientific, 2002). Laurent Nottale's scale-relativity framework, given book-length treatment in Scale Relativity and Fractal Space-Time: A New Approach to Unifying Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (World Scientific, 2011), extends Einstein's relativistic principles to scale transformations. Further work appears across Physical Review, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, and other venues.
\nThe debate turns on whether galaxy-distribution data above roughly 100 megaparsecs shows fractal structure or transitions to homogeneity-and-isotropy. The mainstream position favors homogeneity and treats the cosmological principle as well-established; the fractal side argues the data is insufficient to settle homogeneity at the largest scales. The framework aligns with the fractal side while extending beyond it through the cosmological-hierarchical claim including consciousness, life, and cosmic civilization.
\nRoger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC), set out in Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe (Bodley Head, 2010), proposes that the universe undergoes repeated cycles, the end of each (when all matter has decayed and only photons remain) being conformally equivalent to the beginning of the next. It is a finite-cyclic structure, distinct from Fractal Cosmology's indefinite hierarchical recursion; the two address different questions through different mechanisms.
\nThe framework's content has parallels across cultural-religious traditions worldwide.
\nThe Sanskrit Brahmanda (\"egg of Brahma,\" \"cosmic egg\") names a cosmic egg containing a complete universe; the Hindu tradition posits countless brahmandas, each with its own Brahma, cosmic-temporal cycles, and creation-and-destruction narrative. The cosmic-tree image — the ashvattha, the inverted fig tree of the Bhagavad Gita 15.1-3, with roots above and branches below — connects the cosmic levels. The Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) frames creation cycles across hierarchical scales, the cycles-within-cycles content paralleling the framework's hierarchical recursion within the distinctive Hindu framing.
\nIndra's net, preserved most fully in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Flower Garland Sutra), is a vast network of jewels in which each jewel reflects all the others, each reflection containing the full image of the whole network. Elaborated in the Huayan school in China and the wider Mahāyāna tradition, it articulates cosmic interconnection and mutual containment — each part containing the whole, the boundaries between micro and macro dissolving — a parallel to the framework's self-similar recursion within Buddhist framing.
\nThe Hermetic principle \"as above, so below\" (the Tabula Smaragdina, or Emerald Tablet) states a cosmic-correspondence framework parallel to Fractal Cosmology, and the source material explicitly identifies it with the framework. The principal English form: \"That which is above is like to that which is below, and that which is below is like to that which is above, to accomplish the miracles of one thing.\" The source-material identification runs: \"The Star of David, which is composed of two intertwined triangles, means 'as above, so below.' With the swastika, which signifies that everything is cyclic, in the middle of a six-pointed star, you have our emblem, which contains all the wisdom in the world.\" — tying the Star of David element of the Raëlian symbol to the Hermetic principle. The Renaissance Hermetic tradition (Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, Bruno, Dee) developed cosmic-correspondence further; the dedicated Hermetic entries treat it when written.
\nThe Kabbalistic tradition organizes ten Sephirot (Keter, Chokhmah, Binah, Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod, and Malkuth) within the Tree of Life, a hierarchy of divine emanations. The four worlds (Atziluth, Briah, Yetzirah, Assiah) each contain a complete Tree of Life with its own full set of Sephirot — worlds within worlds paralleling the framework's hierarchical recursion. Isaac Luria's (1534-1572) development added the tzimtzum (the divine self-contraction creating space for finite existence) and the shevirat ha-kelim (the breaking of the vessels), within the distinctive Jewish-mystical framing.
\nAnaximander (c. 610-546 BCE) proposed the apeiron (the boundless, the infinite) as the foundational principle of cosmic existence, an indefinite substrate from which all finite things emerge and to which they return. Anaxagoras (c. 510-428 BCE) held that infinitely many \"seeds\" (spermata) of all qualities are distributed throughout the cosmos, each containing portions of all qualities — a parallel to the \"everything is in everything\" principle. The Greek Atomists (Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius) posited infinitely many worlds distributed throughout infinite space, each with its own natural history — parallel in its infinite multi-world extent, though by parallel distribution rather than hierarchical recursion. Plotinus (c. 204-270 CE) developed Neoplatonic hierarchical emanation from the One through the Nous and the World-Soul to the material world — parallel in hierarchy, though by emanation rather than self-similarity.
\nVarious indigenous traditions preserve nested-cosmos content within their own framings.
\nMesoamerican traditions (Aztec, Maya) posit layered heavens and underworlds — the Aztec framework thirteen heavens above and nine underworlds below, the Maya multiple hierarchical layers, each with its own cosmic content.
\nPolynesian traditions posit multiple cosmic realms; the traditional Hawaiian framework comprised multiple layers of aupuni (cosmic realms) with content on the relationships between them.
\nVarious North American indigenous traditions preserve multi-layer frameworks; the Navajo framework comprised multiple worlds-of-emergence (the preceding worlds from which the People emerged into the present one) with content on the relationships between them.
\nVarious South American indigenous traditions preserve multi-layer cosmic frameworks within their distinctive cultural-religious framings.
\nEach is a nested-cosmos parallel to the framework in its own cultural channel.
\nThe corpus's working position is that the recurrence of nested-cosmos and hierarchical-cosmic frameworks across separated traditions is meaningful evidence of a broader pattern. The mainstream explanation — independent religious-philosophical development plus cultural diffusion — is read as insufficient to account for the breadth and the structural parallels (multi-layer content, hierarchical organization, systematic relations between levels) that recur across geographically and chronologically separated cultures.
\nThe corpus's reading is that the global pattern preserves a common memory of the cosmological situation the framework articulates, each tradition preserving it in its own terms and details: the Hindu Brahmanda most directly for the hierarchical recursion, Buddhist Indra's net for self-similar recursion, the Hermetic tradition for cosmic correspondence (explicitly identified by the source material), the Kabbalistic tradition within Jewish-mystical framing, the Greek traditions within philosophical framing, the indigenous traditions within their own channels.
\nThis does not require rejecting the mainstream account wholesale. Cultural diffusion did occur, and the traditions show both common structure (preserving the original framework) and culturally specific elaboration (reflecting diffusion and local development). What the framework adds is the underlying cosmological situation that gave rise to the structural commonalities — a situation the mainstream account, lacking that framework, has had to attribute to independent development and diffusion alone.
\nVorilhon, Claude (Raël). The Book Which Tells the Truth (1974); collected in Message from the Designers.
\nVorilhon, Claude (Raël). Extra-Terrestrials Took Me to Their Planet (1975); collected in Message from the Designers. The \"Neither God nor Soul\" section is the principal source for the framework's specific content.
\nVorilhon, Claude (Raël). Let's Welcome the Extra-terrestrials (1979); collected in Message from the Designers. The \"Who Created the Creator of the Creators?\" FAQ section is the principal source for the framework's specific image and the broader infinite-hierarchical content.
\nSendy, Jean. Ces dieux qui firent le ciel et la terre. Robert Laffont, 1969. English: Those Gods Who Made Heaven and Earth. Berkley, 1972.
\nSendy, Jean. L'ère du Verseau. Robert Laffont, 1970.
\nBiglino, Mauro, and Giorgio Cattaneo. The Naked Bible: The Truth About the Most Famous Book in History. Uno, 2022.
\nWallis, Paul Anthony. The Eden Conspiracy. 6th Books, 2024.
\nMandelbrot, Benoît B. Les objets fractals: forme, hasard et dimension. Flammarion, 1975.
\nMandelbrot, Benoît B. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W. H. Freeman, 1982.
\nMandelbrot, Benoît B. Fractals and Scaling in Finance: Discontinuity, Concentration, Risk. Springer, 1997.
\nFalconer, Kenneth. Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications. Wiley, 3rd ed., 2014.
\nPietronero, Luciano. \"The Fractal Structure of the Universe: Correlations of Galaxies and Clusters and the Average Mass Density.\" Physica A 144 (1987): 257–284.
\nColeman, Paul H., and Luciano Pietronero. \"The Fractal Structure of the Universe.\" Physics Reports 213, no. 6 (1992): 311–389.
\nBaryshev, Yurij, and Pekka Teerikorpi. Discovery of Cosmic Fractals. World Scientific, 2002.
\nBaryshev, Yurij V. \"The Hierarchical Cosmology and the Origin of Galaxies.\" Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 25 (2006): 411–430.
\nNottale, Laurent. Fractal Space-Time and Microphysics: Towards a Theory of Scale Relativity. World Scientific, 1993.
\nNottale, Laurent. Scale Relativity and Fractal Space-Time: A New Approach to Unifying Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. World Scientific, 2011.
\nPenrose, Roger. Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe. Bodley Head, 2010.
\nSteinhardt, Paul J., and Neil Turok. Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang. Doubleday, 2007.
\nSusskind, Leonard. The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. Little, Brown, 2005.
\nLinde, Andrei. Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology. Harwood Academic, 1990.
\nVilenkin, Alexander. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. Hill and Wang, 2006.
\nTegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Knopf, 2014.
\nGreene, Brian. The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Knopf, 2011.
\nSmolin, Lee. The Life of the Cosmos. Oxford University Press, 1997.
\nGleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. Viking, 1987.
\nEkeland, Ivar. Mathematics and the Unexpected. University of Chicago Press, 1988.
\nBarabási, Albert-László. Linked: The New Science of Networks. Perseus, 2002.
\nWest, Geoffrey B. Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies. Penguin Press, 2017.
\nDoniger, Wendy. Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook. Penguin Classics, 1975.
\nCleary, Thomas, trans. The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. Shambhala, 1993.
\nCook, Francis H. Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977.
\nFaivre, Antoine. The Eternal Hermes. Phanes Press, 1995.
\nYates, Frances A. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. University of Chicago Press, 1964.
\nScholem, Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. Schocken, 1941.
\nIdel, Moshe. Kabbalah: New Perspectives. Yale University Press, 1988.
\nKirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield. The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 1983.
\nLong, A. A., and D. N. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
\nPlotinus. Enneads. Trans. Stephen MacKenna. Penguin, 1991.
\nLeón-Portilla, Miguel. Aztec Thought and Culture: A Study of the Ancient Nahuatl Mind. University of Oklahoma Press, 1963.
\nTedlock, Dennis, trans. Popol Vuh: The Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life. Simon & Schuster, 1985.
\n\"Fractal cosmology.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology
\n\"Cosmological principle.\" Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/cosmological-principle
\n\"Mandelbrot set.\" Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Mandelbrot-set
\n", "extra": {"alternative_names":["fractal cosmos","the fractal-self-similar cosmology","the infinite-hierarchical cosmology","the nested-cosmos framework","the scale-invariant cosmology"],"category":"Cosmology & Framework","claim_type":"framework","editorial_pass":"2026-07","entry_type":"concept","infobox":{"basic_premise":"The cosmos exhibits self-similarity across scales, with the same fundamental patterns of organization recurring at every scale of examination, indefinitely in both directions without finding any bottom or any top","core_image":"The Earth is but a particle of the atom of the atoms of the hand of a gigantic being, who contemplates a starlit sky which composes the hand, the stomach or the foot of a being even more gigantic, who finds himself under a sky, etc., etc., ad infinitum","distinguished_from":"Mainstream Big Bang cosmology (which posits homogeneity-and-isotropy at large scales rather than fractal self-similarity); the Mass Effect framework alone (the temporal dimension rather than the spatial); the broader Infinity framework (which contains Fractal Cosmology as one specific dimension); various mainstream multiverse proposals (which posit specific multi-universe structures rather than the open-ended hierarchical-self-similar structure the framework articulates)","domain":"All scales of cosmological organization, from sub-atomic scales (where intelligent life on the atoms of our atoms exists, on the source's claim) through human scale through planetary, stellar, galactic, intergalactic scales and beyond","mathematical_status":"Structurally aligned with mathematical-fractal vocabulary (Mandelbrot 1975+); not yet formally mathematized within the corpus; principal articulation through source-material passages and corpus interpretive elaboration","principal_text":"*Extra-Terrestrials Took Me to Their Planet* (Vorilhon/Raël, 1975), various passages on the infinite hierarchy; *Let's Welcome the Extra-terrestrials* (1979), 'Who Created the Creator of the Creators?' and various FAQ passages; the Wheel of Heaven corpus's outro treatment in *timeline.epub*","relationship_to_mainstream_cosmology":"Distinct from the standard cosmological-principle homogeneity-and-isotropy framework of mainstream Big Bang cosmology; operates within the contested-fractal-cosmology side of contemporary cosmological debate (Pietronero, Coleman-Pietronero, Baryshev); the Big Bang on the framework's reading is at most the beginning of our observable region rather than the beginning of being itself","relationship_to_mass_effect":"Sister framework; Fractal Cosmology addresses the spatial dimension of cosmological self-similarity; Mass Effect addresses the temporal dimension; both operate within the broader Infinity framework","status_in_source_material":"Explicit; the Raëlian source material articulates the infinite-hierarchical structure across multiple passages, and the corpus's use of *fractal cosmology* as a technical designation registers the alignment with subsequently-developed mathematical vocabulary","type":"Hypothetical cosmological framework; concept articulating the spatial-self-similar structure of the cosmos across the infinite hierarchy of scales"},"lang":"en","lang_prefix":"","same_as":["https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3551267","https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology"],"see_also":[{"description":"The study of the living systems on one rung of the fractal ladder: humanity to the human as the human to the cell.","path":"wiki/macrobiology","title":"Macrobiology"},{"description":"The sister framework addressing the temporal dimension of the same self-similar cosmology.","path":"wiki/mass-effect","title":"Mass Effect"},{"description":"The broader framework of which fractal cosmology is the spatial dimension.","path":"wiki/infinity","title":"Infinity"},{"description":"The nested hierarchy of beings that populates the infinite scale ladder.","path":"wiki/cosmic-chain","title":"Cosmic Chain"},{"description":"A structural-recurrence principle that echoes the framework's self-similarity across scales.","path":"wiki/doubled-signature","title":"Doubled Signature"},{"description":"The framework reading of civilizational dynamics operating within the infinite cosmos.","path":"wiki/cosmic-competition","title":"Cosmic Competition"},{"description":"The civilization whose home-world source material articulates the infinite-hierarchical structure.","path":"wiki/elohim","title":"Elohim"}],"timeline":["all-ages"]} }, "links": { "self": "/v1/wiki/fractal-cosmology/", "canonical_html": "https://www.wheelofheaven.world/wiki/fractal-cosmology/", "index": "/v1/wiki/", "schema": "/v1/schema/wiki-entry/", "related": [{"slug": "macrobiology", "title": "Macrobiology", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/macrobiology/" },{"slug": "mass-effect", "title": "Mass Effect", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/mass-effect/" },{"slug": "infinity", "title": "Infinity", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/infinity/" },{"slug": "cosmic-chain", "title": "Cosmic Chain", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/cosmic-chain/" },{"slug": "doubled-signature", "title": "Doubled Signature", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/doubled-signature/" },{"slug": "cosmic-competition", "title": "Cosmic Competition", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/cosmic-competition/" },{"slug": "elohim", "title": "Elohim", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/elohim/" }] } }