Light and How It Travels to Reach Earth
When we look up at the night sky, at what is known as the celestial sphere, we observe a sea of objects in the universe.
With the human eye, we can see the moon, planets, and stars of the Milky Way galaxy. With telescopes, we can see further, revealing hidden distant galaxies as far as billions of light years away. Or are they?
Cosmic Mapping
In mapping these objects and their relative positions, known as Cosmography, there are two factors we take into account:
- The distance away, which is based on various calculation techniques, and
- The angle that the light arrived at Earth.
Seems straight-forward enough, right?
For example, let's say a galaxy's distance away is calculated by comparing the apparent brightness of a Supernova Type 1a in the galaxy to the known luminosity of a Supernova Type 1a, which is a common practice for calculating galactic distances due to this supernova being considered a standard candle. The result is that the cosmic mapping system of the galaxy's positioning is done using this distance and the angle that we observe the light arriving at Earth.
On the surface, this makes sense. Right? It makes so much sense that the entire practice lacks any critical thinking over the process at all. It is just how we map the universe. In a way, this is considered simple and operates on "autopilot" in physics as we seek deeper understandings far beyond the "basics" of cosmic mapping.
There is just one problem with this technique that is overlooked: the light is assumed to travel in essentially a straight path to reach Earth.
Uninfluenced, light will travel in a straight line. However, when influenced by the force of gravity of an object, it can have its trajectory bend in much the same way as a projectile on Earth has its trajectory curve. This is known as gravitational lensing.
For objects proximal to Earth such as the moon, any such effects on light traveling from them would be minimal and cosmic mapping of their location would be essentially accurate. In other words, their actual location relative to Earth when the light arriving at Earth left the body would be essentially where we observe them to be. Even the stars of the Milky Way galaxy are close when compared to distant galaxies.
But for distant galaxies, this effect is nontrivial. With enough gravitational lensing, the original angle that the light left the galaxy to travel to Earth could be completely opposite from the angle it arrives at Earth.
Generally speaking, we are aware of gravitational lensing occurring due to intermediary galaxies. These are minimal effects which we do account for.
However, there are objects much larger than galaxies in the universe, such as the Great Attractor. This is said to be a "gravitational anomaly" so immense that all galaxies around it appear to be flowing rapidly in its direction, including the Milky Way.
This is depicted by Courtois et al., Cosmography of the Local Universe. It stands to reason, then, if it is massive enough to influence the trajectory of galaxies, its effects on light’s pathing would be substantial.
As a result, the further light has to travel to reach Earth, the more time gravitational lensing effects of objects such as the Great Attractor have to influence the direction light is traveling.
When light arrives at Earth from a distant galaxy, it could literally be light from the Milky Way galaxy itself because of this.
GAMA202627 GAMA202627 is said to be "identical" in make-up to the Milky Way, having equivalent "large" and "small" Magellanic Clouds.
However, because we assume the light has traveled in a straight line, our cosmic mapping adds another new and distinct galaxy at a distant location when these are essentially optical illusions.
Great Attractor and its Electromagnetic Field
With sufficient gravitational lensing, light does not just bend around an object but rather is pulled into a Figure-8 flow pattern, where it physically travels through the body like neutrinos passing through the Earth. The summation of the flow produced by this gravitational lensing produces electromagnetic fields.
This is extremely non-trivial. As this shows how gravity produces electromagnetism, it proves that gravitational lensing plays an extremely critical role in how the universe functions. I write extensively about this in other articles here on Steemit which I encourage you to read, such as The Big Bang's Big Assumption. Also, you can read my research paper, The Universal Principle of Natural Philosophy and/or watch its accompanying video, as well as my short book, The Simple Reality, here.
Conclusion
The further light travels from a galaxy to reach Earth, the less its apparent position matches its actual position (when the light reaching Earth originated from it). As this is not accounted for, all distant galaxies are improperly mapped, leading to a mapping of the observed universe that is so drastically inaccurate that it is akin to the modern day "edge of the flat Earth" map. In reality, it is galaxies all the way down (and up).
Thanks for reading!! Hope you enjoyed it.
-Steve Scully
CascadingUniverse.Org
I very much enjoy your posts. I have attempted to wrap my head around the essence of your original hypothesis, but do not have the education to grasp it, alas.
That being the case, I follow this post through the discussion of lensing up to the point at which you make the leap to figure 8 patterns of flow, which posit photons traveling through matter umimpeded.
I have ontological difficulties with this, and, due to my incapacity to follow the maths, have failed to comprehend the support you assert.
Thereafter, I am able to rejoin your discussion ontologically, including the possibility that light purported to be from distant galaxies may be from our own.
This strikes me as a reference to turtles, which seems apropos, as well as a light-hearted (get it? =p) manner of expressing your intention of reforming cosmography, and indeed, cosmology.
Have I interpreted this correctly, or have I missed a more concrete interpretation?
Thanks!
Hello again, thanks for reading and your comment!
Regarding photons traveling through matter unimpeded, I will reference the concept that "it is galaxies all the way down" that you quoted. While we label everything we see in the universe differently, be it atoms or planets or stars or black holes or neutrinos or photons and so on, they all are ultimately the same fundamental structure stretching across an infinite scale. The difference really lies in what their relative mass is to what we call "atoms". Anything can be seen as atoms when the observer's building blocks are of that particular mass.
With that in mind, a "ray of light" is composed of a wave of these mini-galaxies (that we call photons, again due to their relative mass to atoms). In other words, even light is ultimately "matter" in the same way as a planet is matter.
Now, the conclusion of light traveling unimpeded through bodies comes from various observations. Most directly, it is extrapolated from our actual observational awareness of neutrinos passing through the Earth. As neutrinos are known to do so, this means any mass is capable of doing so in the right relative conditions.
Indirectly, but in my opinion the strongest proof that it occurs in all scales, is electromagnetic fields. While we presently label electromagnetism as its own fundamental force of nature, it is actually a result of smaller particles flowing physically through relatively larger particles in these Figure-8 patterns. In this way, the force of gravity which only pulls is able to produce the observation of a force that both pulls and pushes, due to the momentum of particles going through the center of gravity being maintained so as to flow outward from the body at a pole. The formation of a north and south pole is very closely connected to the actual rotation of the body because of this; without rotation there is no formation of poles and the system has no (observable) electromagnetic field, such as Venus.
There is extensive research on this very topic of the relationship between rotation and the formation of an electromagnetic field, but none bringing gravity's pull of surrounding particles through the body into Figure-8 patterns into account.
My reasoning for the Figure-8 pattern is that if it is occurring then all light traveling in this manner around and through one given system would result in the observations of redshift per distance that we see. As gravity is an inverse of radius-squared, it would lead to an increase in redshift per distance that would grow to be observably exponential. As this uses only gravity to explain these critical observations, it demonstrates that the addition of "expansion of space" and "dark energy" (which stem from linear interpretations of the flow of light over large distances) are unnecessary and illogical. As the most likely interpretation is the simplest, one that can explain "cosmological redshift" and electromagnetic fields all in one fell swoop using gravity alone is much more reasonable than one that requires additional fundamental elements to explain such.
While discussing the Figure-8 flow above was rather supplemental, I ultimately did so because if gravitational lensing is sufficient this is ultimately what it will achieve. It can be reasoned that it would stop when it interacts with the body, but when we look at all electromagnetic fields in existence these show us that there is a continuous flow occurring rather than only "half" of the Figure-8 that would occur from the flow being prevented at the center. I then draw the conclusion that light is necessarily flowing in this same manner around the Great Attractor and my reasoning is that it so drastically simplifies the model that it necessitates it to be the case logically.
It was indeed a reference to turtles, and it was in a light-hearted (ha) manner, albeit simultaneously expressing the foundation of how things are in all seriousness. It is critically important to science that the functionality of all systems be recognized as the same, regardless of their masses. It is only that they are observed differently because we observe them specifically using what we call "atoms" as a reference point. As a result, there are extensive "time-dilation" discrepancies we see between the large and the small, but this is really a means for us to better understand both large and small through recognizing that they function the same and extrapolating greater understanding through the mechanisms we are able to observe in each. For example, if we recognize atoms to be solar systems (to be galaxies), then nuclei can supernova as well. In one case, we call them supernovae. In the other, we call them radioactive decay and nuclear fusion. These are considered to be completely separate and distinct mechanisms, but in reality they are one and the same. The only difference is the scale. We can learn much about radioactive decay and nuclear fusion by looking through the best microscope we have:observing supernovae. Without the parallels, they are disconnected and unrelated. With the parallels, they provided connection points for greater understanding.
I am gonna take this in chunks. I reckon this is integral to forming comprehension of your thesis:
so I'm gonna stop right here until I grasp this bit.
I believe I do grasp your description of matter as scalar; that there is no substantive difference between particles except size, at the different scales. Your description of atoms as 'mini-galaxies' seems to impart this description.
I can however, not grasp how the different subatomic particles, i.e. neutrinos, photons, protons, and etc., might be differentiated, nor do I see analogous particles at the macro scale.
Let's start there. Have I grasped your description of matter substantively?
Interesting post. This is not my field of expertise so I apologize if the question is stupid, but I was wandering if the observer has no way of knowing or calculating the deviation of light why is it a problem. It would be a problem if we are supposed to go or send something to a distant place. It is good to know that the map is not accurate but the map itself is not for navigation but for information. Wright? We know that mercator projections map are inaccurate in showing areas but they serve their purpose. Just my thought
That's a great question. When it comes to mapping of the cosmos, we draw many conclusions based on it.
For example, you can read about (as the article says) "THE most precise map so far of dark matter in our universe" here, where conclusions are being drawn based on the mapping.
Imagine for a second that light originating from each nearby galaxy, which goes out in every direction, is bent by the gravity of an object. Some of those trajectories, then arrive at Earth at essentially any angle and any distance away. Essentially everything we see would be optical illusions and "repeats" of the same galaxies or galaxy clusters. We then map this as if they are real, but we are literally mapping optical illusions.
The further away they are, the more likely to be optical illusions. They all exist somewhere, but none where they appear to be. Rather, the light has traveled in bending paths that arrives at Earth after millions or billions of years.
Then, we move forward and draw conclusions about the overall structure of the universe based on these optical illusions. All well known theories out there assume each galaxy we see to be a unique and distinct galaxy, when in reality there is no accounting for gravitational lensing to determine the reality of the situation.
With light traveling repetitively in a very large-scale Figure-8 pattern, it can basically arrive at Earth from any angle and at any distance even if the original source is the Milky Way galaxy itself. Without accounting for gravitational lensing, we would never be the wiser.
Other reasons for it mattering are really about actual understanding. The better we understand how the universe functions in all facets, the more precise we can be in determining anything and everything as well as preventing the distribution of misinformation. Our actions stem from our understandings or misunderstandings. The more in line what is and what we think become, the more we can unlock the doors of actual, tangible, real, fundamental understanding. What lies beyond is, like any step forward in understanding, progress. As Buzz Lightyear says, "to Infinity and beyond!" :)
This post is just one small element of misunderstandings in physics I attempt to address in my posts, but they are all connected. Everything comes back to gravity in physics, as it is the one and only fundamental force of nature. The other three are all demonstrably the result of gravity with certain misconceptions such as those I talk about in the post above recognized and included in consideration.
Thanks for finding time to answer me. Keep up with good posts
Thanks! :)
Its very interesting post. I had followed lectures on physics from Leonard Susskind in You-tube. He had said that, the gravitational lensing theory gonna be proved. Later, they proved it.
Thank you!!
Thanks. I don't know if I have heard him talk about gravitational lensing, but I'd be interested in hearing his take. I do not agree with quantum mechanics in general, string theory, or any theory that says the small is different than the large or vice versa (like string theory), but I'll have to try to check it out. Feel free to link if you easily can find it. :)
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=leonard+susskind+general+relativity
In this lecture series somewhere.
I think you have wrong perception about quantum mechanics. It is equally valid for particles from nano to the macro celestial bodies. It is just that it is not observed in daily life.
Thanks!
To be fair, quantum mechanics is a sea of theories. Generally speaking, they hinge on the idea of probabalistic behavior in the quantum world, while we see deterministic behavior in the world around us.
I was talking more about string theory which claims the universe to be made of vibrating "strings" rather than particles. In reality, it is particles all the way down, though these function observably as waves in summation when sufficiently small relative to atoms.
What do you mean by "valid" but "just that it is not observed"? How can these coexist?
I don't know about string theory just the basics.
We cannot observe the subatomic particles but we can observe their effects. From that, we model their behavior. The theory given becomes valid with mathematical foundation. Can you relate?
My question to that would be what about other mathematical foundations such as classical mechanics? What makes quantum mechanics carry more validity? To me, hidden behind the mask of elaborate mathematical formulas that attempt to explain the quantum world are very fundamental errors. The mathematics of quantum mechanics is founded, for example, on an equation that uses imaginary numbers to explain the real world. I am no expert in quantum mechanics, but I have exposed myself to it to a degree where my conclusion regarding it is that it is a best-fit approximation of some systems that falls apart the further from the specific range of observations that it is best applied to that we look. However, in my opinion, it does not describe the actual reality we live in but, in being an approximation, it describes a non-reality. To me, nothing about it is actually fundamentally accurate; the universe is simple and elegant rather than mysterious and complex. Our interpretations can lead to descriptions of it that are this way, but that does not mean that it is fundamentally such. My two cents, though I will admit that my exposure to quantum mechanics is rudimentary. I hinge my stance on logic and reason which I fall back to as a basis for my interpretations extensively when it comes to quantum mechanics.