Author's Challenge: "Any evidence and observation (that is clear and conclusive) that there is any not common force or element for both levels (atomic and stellar) will be proof of failure and devaluation of my Cosmic and Atomic model; but any evidence and observation of new coincidences in these elements at both levels will be proof and validity of my model."

And this seems to be supported by the observations and measurements made to date, although occasionally the same element of the microcosm and the macrocosm have been named differently, such as, for example, the Strong Force in atoms and Gravity in stars, due to inappropriate measurements, as noted below.
These data and observations are presented in the drawings and tables, in which we first see how the known basic cosmic forces, such as gravity and magnetic forces, exist at both the atomic and stellar levels.

- Gravity, for example, is easily denoted and measured at our level by the attraction that stars exert on the surrounding matter, and which is enormous in stellar nuclei or suns like ours.
However, at the level of atomic nuclei, it is said to be very weak, not because it has been measured there, but because it has been adjusted to our level parameters.
This does not seem acceptable since more than 90% of matter, and therefore the gravity of the cosmos must be in atomic nuclei, and therefore it must be extremely strong there, as its name the Strong Force suggests.
But as I believe, the adjustments were made with measurements and metric units specific to our level; but without taking into account that atomic metric units are 6.28 times 10 to the power of 22 times smaller, and that the square of the gravitational distances with these coefficients would be 4 times 10 to the power of 45, on the outer periphery of atoms.
* Another aberration in my opinion, is the one referring to the Higgs Fields and Bosons, so far from observation and practical application, and so difficult to digest for a critical physicist, since both concepts already exist in classical physics: And that they are the force of Gravity that permeates the entire Universe, and all the material particles condensed by these Gravitational fields, which are those that measure their masses between them.

Previous drawing: As we see in the drawing, there is not only a complete coincidence of forces, elements and sets of elements, but also equivalence of structural behaviors such as excitation, radiation and explosion of large atoms (ie. uranium) and large supernova stars, because these exceed the maximum energy density (and magnetic potential) allowed by the Cosmos.

* But let's review some of the equivalences between levels:
In the equivalences of atomic and stellar measurements, we have kept things as simple as possible by referring, for example, to the relative masses between nuclei and their orbitals or satellites, using our sun as an example, and to the sum of the masses orbiting it, such as planets, moons, etc.
- In it, we see that the sun can have approximately 2 times 10 to the power of 30 kg, while its orbitals can have a mass of 2 times 10 to the power of 27 kg, the ratio between them being approximately 10 to the power of 3.
And in atomic mass measurements, we would have that the nucleus of an atom equivalent to the sun, which could be neon, would be 20 times 10 to the power of minus 27 kg, and the sum of the masses of its orbitals could be approximately 20 times 10 to the power of minus 30 kg, the ratio between them also being approximately 10 to the power of 3.
- Regarding the relative measurements of the radii of the nucleus in relation to the radii of the orbital systems, atomic radii, and radii of the solar system, we would have:
That the radius of the solar system would be 6 times 10 to the power of 12 m. And the radius of the sun would be approximately 7 times 10 to the power of 8 m, with the ratio between them being approximately 10 to the power of 4.
This way, the radius of a neon atom being approximately 0.8 times 10 to the power of minus 10 m.
And so this way the radius of the neon nucleus being approximately of 10 to the power of minus 4.
And so, the ratio between them would also be approximately 10 to the power of 4.

Now, to conclude this brief exposition of principles, formulas, and data, I would like to include a geometric figure that the Cosmos uses to gather matter and construct orbital systems, from its beginnings with proto-systems to the now-completed orbital systems endowed with multiple satellites rotating in perfectly defined stationary orbits, such as atoms with their electrons and stars with their planets.

The Cosmic Dance:

Postulate: "If gravity alone existed in the Universe as its basic force, then all matter in the Cosmos would be directly attracted to and try to concentrate in a single, large material nucleus."
But no: "When gravity binds matter into large, dense particles or material nuclei, a magnetic force of expansion and redistribution of matter again throughout its natural space is immediately born from them."

And these magnetic forces of expansion (with multiple subsequent implications) are those that become so powerful that, clearly surpassing gravity, they even destroy large particles (such as atoms from uranium) and large stars such as supernovae.
Well, as "good citizens of the Cosmos," this pair of forces, Gravity and Magnetic Forces, reach a good understanding of mutual balance, proceeding to the creation of orbital systems (denser nuclei with satellites rotating around them) in such a way that the created systems, being of large volume, acquire a balance of contained energy density, which cosmic laws allow them to subsist in these forms of orbital systems.
And so, while Gravity binds cosmic energy together in the form of matter and mass, forming all kinds of material particles and nuclei, the Magnetic Forces are dedicated to creating the appropriate orbits with positive charges that attract, capture, and keep the orbitals or satellites rotating around the nuclei.
A perfect coexistence and creativity between both types of forces, right?
Well, to the spin and rotation movements of all orbital systems, such as atoms and their satellites, electrons and their Neutrinos; stars and their planets; galaxies; even the rotational and evasive movements of atoms in molecules; of stars in multiple stars, etc., and that is what I call or refer to as the Cosmic Dance, and it is what allows so many elements in the Cosmos to survive without colliding and destroying each other.

Well, this model maintains that the creation of orbital systems from small particles and stardust will be carried out primarily by the gravitational attraction of these particles. When they are close together, a notable increase in the energy density accumulated in that location occurs. This will immediately give rise (as explained elsewhere in the model) to a magnetic force (antagonistic to gravity), expanding and redistributing energy throughout the surrounding periphery.
And when this pair of antagonistic forces is exerted simultaneously, it forces the entire system to rotate on itself, producing a complete equilibrium, namely:
- The entire system will occupy the volume necessary for the energy density to drop to the average values that the Cosmos has and allows. - Achieving all types of balances of centrifugal and centripetal forces by acquiring the necessary angular velocities according to the mass, distance from the nucleus, etc., of the orbitals or satellites.
That is, the incoming (gravity) and outgoing forces of the nucleus order and command the orbitals, and they adapt their circumstances of velocities, momenta, etc., to the situations and distances they find themselves in from the nucleus.

Note: Let us remember that according to this model, both Gravity and Magnetic Force are the same cosmic energy that, when entering concentrically and joining together to form the material nucleus, acts as a force of union and cohesion of matter; while when passing through the nucleus and going outside, it expands and creates the periphery of the orbital system, with its well-defined positive orbits, attracting, capturing and forcing satellites to remain in these orbits and defend the entire system from the penetration of other systems into its domains, as well as exchanging orbitals when the needs of the system require it.
And that's why there is so much balance and uniformity between the gravitational and magnetic forces of orbital systems, because it's the same force or energy, but with a different direction and scope.

And of course, since this model is one of equality and equivalence between systems, the same thing occurs and has always occurred in the creation of stars and in the creation of new atoms, throughout the Universe. That is, there was no Big Bang point from which the Universe emerged and expanded from that point, but rather the Universe or Cosmos has always been created from all points in space.
And no, it is not expanding; rather, there are specific, punctual explosions and radiations of systems, not an expansion of the Universe as a whole.
What we consider an expanding Universe is only a particular and very partial view of the explosion or radiation that occurred in our orbital system of origin.

And now I put some drawings or diagrams with data and measurements of my atomic model.

Light particles (previous diagram):

In my atomic model, light particles are the smallest particles within that level of the microcosm or atomic level.
Their masses would be between 10 to the minus 80 grams and 10 to the minus 60 grams.
And here my model considers something new: the expanding magnetic fields emitted by particles in atoms cannot cause them all to acquire the same speed; rather, the smaller the particles, the greater their speed.
In this case, the smallest particles, such as radio particles and visible light, would acquire the maximum possible speed, i.e., speed C; while much larger particles would be slower.

Cosmo-mathematical curiosity (previous drawing):
At the beginning of my cosmic and atomic model, and in the atomic adjustments, I was already surprised by the "coincidence" that with some very simple mathematical parameters (the number Pi and the cube root of 2), the value of the structural parameters of atoms could be adjusted without having to measure them, such as the atomic radius unit, or radius of the hydrogen atom; atomic mass unit; atomic density, etc.; and with them, all these measurements in the other atoms could be found using simple formulas.
And since all this is done with simple mathematical formulas, I added the term "mathematical" to these units, thus renaming the following units:
(MUAR) or Mathematical unit of atomic radius, or atomic radius of hydrogen.
(MUAM) or Mathematical unit of atomic mass. Which would be the total mass of the hydrogen atom.

This simple drawing highlights the atomic structure of hydrogen according to my atomic model, showing how positive electromagnetic (electrical) charges form and reside in the peripheral magnetic orbits of atoms, rather than in the central nucleus, which is amorphous and not composed of elementary particles (neither protons, neutrons, gluons, etc.).
The mathematical atomic measurements presented in this model are also expressed, and with these, general atomic measurements can be easily adjusted.

The previous diagram shows the differences between the quantum probability model in the particle situation and my atomic model.
The quantum model tells us that within the atomic system, where electromagnetic forces and charges truly exist, strangely enough, these forces of attraction and rotational equilibrium do not exist there, but rather a system of probabilities, which has never been proven to be true, and where the electron is almost always adjacent to the central nucleus.
In my (classical planetary) model, electrons are attracted, captured, and held by the positive charges of the orbits.
And it is from there that they are transferred (or acquired) to other atoms in chemical reactions, a well-proven fact, since electrons always go to the orbits and not to the central nuclei.
For example, if our hydrogen atom transfers its electron a thousand times in a chemical reaction, and then takes it back again by the reverse action, then the electron will always go to the orbit, and never to the nucleus.
Why? Because it is in the orbit where the positive charge is that attracts and maintains it.

II Note: As we can deduce from the formulas, a particle or orbital system will be positive if it has a higher energy density than the average of the Cosmos (Da); and it will be negative if the orbital system has less energy than the cosmic average.
Therefore, positive and negative charges attract and draw together, because this brings them closer to the average energy density of the Cosmos.

III note: Because every material particle alone, being an accumulation of matter and energy, must be positive, then all the larger material particles try to gather and form large-volume orbital systems (nucleus with orbitals around it, all of it managed and structured by the magnetic fields of the system) in order to search for the average energy density that the Cosmos has.

* In summary: This atomic model is simple and straightforward, and is fulfilled at all cosmic levels, both macro and microcosms (atoms and stars), of a classical type with new insights and contributions. In essence, it is a theory of everything that encompasses all cosmic forces and elements, such as energy, gravity, magnetic forces, and electrical or electromagnetic charges; matter and its mass; moving on to the structuring of orbital systems to balance the energy density in the Cosmos, and thus the formation of successive cosmic levels, such as atoms, stars (including galaxies), etc.
Furthermore, it would be very easy to demonstrate its falsity or lack of scientific validity; it would be sufficient to reliably find forces or elements at one level that do not have their equivalent at another.

* The QM, as pseudoscience for believers, but not for critical physicists:

The postulates of Quantum Mechanics can only be sustained by a narrow-minded human imagination devoid of even a modicum of scientific criticism (which they call inappropriate everyday logic).
And yes, I understand that QM is wrong from the start, for example, that particles are waves and that these, according to their double-slit experiments, for example, can occupy more than one cubic meter of volume.
And as two simple examples (drawings) show:

The inconsistencies of QM, explained for example using the Uncertainty Principle:

Summary of the explanations that AI* gives us (and that we all already know from multiple information) about particle analysis in accelerators, taking into account that these measurements are made at the same time, when the particle beam is in the detectors.
"AI* In a particle accelerator, parameters such as energy (usually in electron volts), charge, mass, and velocity of the particles, as well as the trajectory and magnetic field strength of the beam, are measured.
This data is obtained by colliding particles with each other and detecting the resulting products, allowing scientific models of particle interactions to be tested and refined.
Particle parameters:
Energy: Measured in electron volts (eV) or its submultiples, especially when the speed of the particle is close to that of light.
Charge: The electrical charge of the particle, a positive or negative value.
Mass: The mass of the particle, which can be measured in atomic mass units (amu) or kilograms.
Velocity: A vector quantity that describes the motion of the particle."
A question (my) would be:
Why does Quantum Mechanics lie to us so much, as for example in the Uncertainty Principle?
Why do they use long dialectical tricks in all their explanations, leading us to clearly false conclusions?
And finally, the most shameful question of all: Why do QM scientists and dogmatists, already aware of its falsity, continue to ignore this fact and try to impose such aberrations on us?
Therefore, and although it may seem pretentious to express it, I lean for the contrary, towards my Certainty Principle.

In short, uncertainty is not a structural or physical problem of the particles themselves, but rather of the people who measure them, who need to measure the parameters of these particles one by one.
However, as proven and demonstrated in particle accelerators, multiple measuring devices can be set up, each of which can obtain its own specific data on what happens to a particle in a single situation and time (x, t), and unite and compute all this data into a set of total certainty of the facts or events that occurred.
Therefore, the uncertainty lies in the individual who measures them, not in the particles; if they measure nothing, everything is uncertain. If they have different measuring devices for a given position and time (x, t), the sum of these measurements will give us a total certainty, which is greater the greater the amount of data processed:
iA + iB + iC + .... = Total cert. in (x,t)
But we also see that (x,t), that is, the measurement situation x at time t, is essential and computable for all other measurements to be obtained.
*Therefore, (x,t) is not UNCERTAIN with respect to CERTAINTY in the other parameters; on the contrary, it is computable and the basis for obtaining all the other parameters:
"The more certainty we have in the situations of particles through time, (x1,t1); (x2,t2); (x3,t3), etc.) the more certainty we will have in their speed and momentum"

Finally, here we see some of the basic principles of quantum mechanics, taken, of course, from what was previously known about the properties of materials, such as electrical conductivity, the resistance of different materials to the passage of electrical currents, the ability of electropositive and electronegative materials to give up or capture electrons with varying degrees of ease, etc., and all this applying new names to these properties in order to construct a new theory (Quantum Mechanics) that would not be criticisable if it did not entail a total denial of the real physics of elements, forces, masses, conservation of energy; the appearance, disappearance, and multiplication of particles in different places; the subjection of the existence and behaviour of particles according to our measurements, etc., to translate everything into probabilities devoid of any action or adjustment to the previous parameters.
And also with a bit of sarcasm or mockery towards quantum followers: "Do not think or use every-day physical logic, but our infallible, ethereal, and magical teachings."

Please, let's not be self-centered or pretentious, bordering on utter stupidity:
"Information arrives, is established, and is transformed into creative data in our brain, because it has that creative capacity. But the cosmic structure has always existed (before and after the creation of man) and never becomes reality because of our observation."
Is it really possible and sane to believe that the Universe has been waiting 13 billion years for man to appear before becoming real?
A little humility and intelligence, please.

Well, friends, now I'll show you some of the websites where I've been presenting my work for many years.
That is, my cosmic and atomic model is very extensive and not at all a coincidental occurrence, but rather the work of my entire life.
Of course, some pages will be a bit obsolete, but they serve to give you a glimpse into the history of my conclusions.
Thank you very much.

PHYSICS:
COSMIC and ATOMIC MODEL ||| Video: Cosmic and atomic model
Double slit and camera obscura experiments: ferman experiment ||| Type of Waves: Questions of Quantum Mechanics
The socurces of gravity. ||| In favour of the cosmos theory of ferman FCM ||| Theory of Everything: summary
Model of Cosmos. ||| Development speed of forces.||| Magnets: N-S magnetic polarity.
Stellar molecules ||| Static and Dynamic chaos||| Inversion or Left-right proof ||| Scheme approach TOE
Chart of atomic measures||| The main foundations of the Cosmos' Structure ||| Unstable particles in accelerators
Short summary atomic model ||| Positive electric charges reside in orbits.||| Mathematical cosmic model based on Pi.
Inexactness principle in observations ||| Einstein and the gravity ||| The Universal Motion ||| Atomic particles
Cosmic Geometry ||| Bipolar electronic: semiconductors ||| Multiverse or multi-worlds||| Light and photons
Quantum explanation of Gravity ||| Real physics versus virtual physics ||| The window experiment
Atomic Density ||| Linkin: Coeficients Lcf Mcf ||| Atomic nuclei structuring: Short summary
Few points about Cosmic Structuring.||| What is Time||| Simultaneity ||| The Cosmic tree ||| The Cosmic entropy
Interesting and short life of neutrons ||| Leptons field ||| Macro Microcosm, the same thing.
Fourth dimension of space.||| The way to get a unity theory||| UHECR Ultra-high-energy-cosmic-rays
Magnetic or entropy forces: types or classes||| Time observation and time emission ||| The universe expansion
Planetary Mechanics : Short summary ||| Easy explanation of the Planetary model||| State and type of Particles
Higgs boson and fields: wrong way ||| The positron proof: main types of magnetic fields ||| The gravity proof
Current state of cosmology ||| Electromagnetic charges: reason and procedure ||| Neutron: The short and interesting life of
Type of Magnetic Forces ||| The big-bang and Universe' expansion ||| Astronomical chart: Astros, asteroids and microids
Certainty Principle: easy explanation ||| Certainty Principle and the Schrodinger's Cat ||| Wave function collapse
Relativity versus QM ||| The non-curvature of space by matter ||| The Master Clock
Ferman's light analysis ||| Cosmos basic elements, summary||| Comparative numbers in double slit experiment
Stars dimensions ||| Orbital situation of electrons ||| Bright cores versus Black holes
Summary of Ferman cosmic vision and models ||| Atomic nuclei similar to stars ||| Stationary time, but not local neither relativist
Neutrinos versus background radiation ||| Saturn says no to Einstein curvature.||| Da: Average density of energy in the cosmos
Gravity versus magnetic fields of force ||| Black holes cannot exist||| Expansion of materials by energy
Particles in accelerators: almost infinite ||| Trans-dimensional or ideal loupe||| 4D of space, time and matter
5D x 6D = Universal motion x time = Cosmic energy ||| The six cosmic dimensions
Neutrinos ||| Nature of light ||| Hydrogen atom ||| Uncertainty principle: test||| Criticism to Quantum M
Invariance Principle of Time ||| Stuffing forces and heat particles||| Physical waves and imaginary waves
Higgs fields and bosons: Imaginary elements||| Higgs bosons predictions||| Exotic particles
Stars as copies of atoms ||| ERF: Energy rebalancing forces||| Big Bang reality
MATHEMATICS:
Radial coordinates.||| Physical and mathematical sets theory. | Algebraic product of sets.
Planar angles: Trimetry.||| Fractions: natural portions.||| Cosmic spiral ||| Inverse values of parameters and operation
Equivalence and commutive property of division. ||| Concepts and Numbers. ||| Bend coefficient of curves ||| Mathematical dimensions
Transposition property ||| Accumulated product: Powers ||| Dimensional Geometry: Reversibility
Priority Rule in powers and roots ||| The decimal counter ||| The floating point index ||| Paradoxes in mathematics
Direct formula for Pi: The Squaring Pi. ||| The pyramids of Squaring Pi. ||| Functions of Pi ||| Integration formulas Pi.
Squaring the Circle ||| Cocktail formula for Squaring Pi.||| Orbital coordinates in motion: Summary
Oscillating function: Cartesian oscillators ||| The ciclo as unit of angular speed ||| Squaring circles ruler and compass |||
Video: Squaring circles ruler and compass ||| The number Phi and the circumference.speed |||
The The extended Pi ||| Angles trisection||| Squaring the Circle regarding Phi||| Video of the two squares method
Discusion about the Pi as transcendental number|||: Not transcendental Pi||| The chained sets|||
Properties of equalities in limits||| The Phi right triangles ||| Pi and the Circumscription Theorem
Pi triangle by squaring the circle : Vedeo Pi triangle ||| Squaring Pi demonstration by circumscription Theorem LatexPdf
Doubling the cube ||| Framing the circle ||| Phi and Pi: relation formula
Squaring circle with Phi (to 0.000005 of ideal ruler and compass)||| Sbits: Static and dinamic orbital coordinates
Squaring Pi and the Floating Point
OTHER:
Spherical molecules. ||| Genetic Heredity. ||| Metaphysics: Spanish only. ||| Brain and Consciousness. ||| Type of Genes T and D
Certainty Principle ||| From the Schrodinger cat to the Ferman's birds ||| The meaning of Dreams
Freely economy ||| Theoricles of Alexandria ||| Rainbow table of elements.||| Satire on the Quantum Mechanics
Cancer and precocious aging ||| Hardware and software of Genetics ||| The farmer and the quantum physicist
Dreams and unconscious logical computing ||| Intelligence and logic ||| How our brain and mind work
INVENTIONS:
Andalusian Roof Tile. ||| Rotary Engine. ||| Water motors: Vaporization engines.
Triangular ferman's Houses .||| Pan for frying and poaching eggs ||| The fringed forest
Summary of Hydraulic Chenge Box ||| Ferman fingernails
ARTICLES:
The Emperor's new clothes and the QM ||| Garbage Triangle: Quantum mechanics, Relativity, Standard theory
Fables and tales of the relativists clocks.||| Nuclei of galaxies.||| Particles accelerators.
Hydrocarbons, water and vital principles on the Earth. ||| Cosmos formula : Metaphysics
Ubiquity Principle of set.||| Positive electric charges reside in orbits.
Chaos Fecundity. Symbiosis: from the Chaos to the Evolution.||| Speed-Chords in galaxies.
The ancient planets Asteron and Poseidon.||| The man and the testosterone.||| Toros say ||| The essence of life
Chaos + symbiosis = evolution ||| Future Cosmology: Satire on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
The stupid tale of the astronaut that did not age ||| Summary of Ferman cosmic vision and models
Climate due to human activity ||| Humans as herd animals
METAPHYSICS:
Video Universal Consciousness||| Who is God ||| Faces of God ||| Web Universal consciousness
Creation: Highlights||| First steps in metaphysics ||| A personal experience
Reason for the Cosmos' creation ||| The essence of life ||| Cosmic Entity: Metaphysics and Physics parameters