RE: Light and How It Travels to Reach Earth
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.
" In reality, it is galaxies all the way down (and up)."
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?