Thinking about magnetic particles

Brad

Thinking about magnetic particles
«  »

More side thoughts from a non-technical kind of way. 

Imagine the gyroscopic magnetic particles mentioned by Newman.  I just realized they are probably doing a super steep elliptical orbit around the nucleus when the magnetic field is present.  They orbit normally until an electron passes through and it disturbs their orbit.   That explains why they pull themselves back together .  They can orbit the Nucleus and they can orbit themselves. The flux lines we can see are their peak orbit.  They are always there.

Later,
Brad


Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #1,  »
Some refined thoughts

Imagine if the magnetic force were actually small particles that orbited the nucleus of the atom.  Some of the key features are that they can orbit themselves and their nucleus.  When an electron passes through an atom, the orbit of the small magnetic particles are disturbed.  Once disturbed the orbit is elliptical.  The steepness of the elliptical is determined by the strength of the magnetic field.

The magnetic attraction is created by the magnetic particles matching spin with a magnetic particle from a separate nucleus.  These particles continue to be attracted to their own nucleus and the their mated magnetic particle.  They pull themselves back together.  A paired up magnetic particle can break orbit if its respective nucleus's attraction is strong enough.

Cycle

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #2,  »Last edited by Cycle
They're not really "particles" (as in matter), they're "particles" (as in any microscopic entity described by the Standard Model, whether it's a boson or fermion).

They're photons. Virtual photons, to be exact... virtual photons mediate the electromagnetic fundamental force, they're the 'force carriers'. The vacuum polarization around the nucleus of an atom pulls them out of the quantum vacuum, and for a brief instant, they really 'exist' in our frame of reference... but destructive interference 'smears out' their energy back into the quantum vacuum.

They flash into and out of our frame of reference so quickly that we can't directly sense or measure them, but we can see and measure their effect... the magnetic field.

Yes, you can 'see' a magnetic field via a ferrocell. If you build your own, use very thin glass (or transparent plastic which is compatible with the ferrofluid) separators and two or three layers of the ferrofluid, it'll give you a more 3-D view.

Brad

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #3,  »
The shadow of an electron.

Matt Watts

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #4,  »Last edited
Little spinning spheres having a radius of basically zero.  The more you zoom-in on them, the smaller they get and the more of them you find.   :-)

Something like this:  https://www.wanttoknow.info/energy/wilbur_smith_new_science#2.1

Cycle

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #5,  »
I prefer to think of magnetism as the bow wave of an accelerating electron, much like a boat has a bow wave... except the electron, once it stops accelerating (either linearly or angularly) no longer has a bow wave.

Brad

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #6,  »
Cool analogy.  Let me ponder it a bit.

talisman

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #7,  »

Magnetism is a duality of electrical existence. Electron interaction and the electric field exists with the equivalent magnetic particle energy and field at the sub atomic level. The state of interaction and transformation density is a function of the elapsed time in flux.     

Apoc4lypse

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #8,  »Last edited
I feel like there's gotta be some way to use a magnetic field that isn't in flux to cause a current to flow through a conductor so we can just turn magnetized metals into batteries.

I was reading about Ferromagnetism and why certain metals are ferromagnetic and some aren't and how it has to do with unpaired electrons in atoms being the cause...

I mean, I'm new to understanding the true physics of magnetism still, but it just seems like if magnetism works via electrons, that there'd be a way to use a stationary magnetized material to move electrons through a ferromagnetic wire without having to move the magnetized material or the wire...

...I need to read more about electricity...

Matt Watts

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #9,  »
Quote from talisman on February 17th, 2018, 04:52 AM
The state of interaction and transformation density is a function of the elapsed time in flux.
And that my friend would be your tempic field, the gradient of spin.

Cycle

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #10,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Apoc4lypse on February 27th, 2018, 03:29 AM
I feel like there's gotta be some way to use a magnetic field that isn't in flux to cause a current to flow through a conductor so we can just turn magnetized metals into batteries.

I was reading about Ferromagnetism and why certain metals are ferromagnetic and some aren't and how it has to do with unpaired electrons in atoms being the cause...

I mean, I'm new to understanding the true physics of magnetism still, but it just seems like if magnetism works via electrons, that there'd be a way to use a stationary magnetized material to move electrons through a ferromagnetic wire without having to move the magnetized material or the wire...

...I need to read more about electricity...
Not going to work the way you describe... magnetism is an effect of an accelerating point charge (doesn't have to be electrons, it can be protons)... in a magnet, the electrons are undergoing angular acceleration.

Think of magnetism like the bow-wave of an electron 'boat', except that bow-wave disappears when the electron is stationary or not accelerating.

An electric field is a magnetic field in a stationary frame of reference, and a magnetic field is an electric field in a moving frame of reference, so you could leverage that knowledge to create something which will do what you want, but it'll still require motion. I did something akin to that here.

But imagine how powerful a magnet could be made if we were able to align all the atom's electrons... magnetism relies upon only unpaired electrons, and the rest of them orbiting the nucleus give no net increase of the magnetic field.

Matt Watts

« Reply #11,  »
Cycle,

If I could twist your arm hard enough to really read and dig into this, I'll bet in a very short time many dots would perfectly connect.  Granted, it's some tough stuff to get your head wrapped around, but it makes so much sense after five or more attempts digesting it.  The problem I'm having is finding the proper math to work with it.  Quaterions are close, a cylindrical coordinate system is close, but nothing matches Smith's description well enough to do computations.  I'm no quantum physicist, so this stuff is very difficult for me to manipulate.

Anyway, PM me if you decide to take the plunge and I'll start a discussion thread for the topic.

Apoc4lypse

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #12,  »Last edited
Interesting idea Cycle.

I could see how it would work and think its definitely worth testing out, I look forward to hearing about what results you get from it.
Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #13,  »
Actually I got a question after reading you ideas and thinking about magnetism and electromagnetism.

When electric current flows, there is energy loss through heat right, isn't there technically also energy loss from the magnetic field being generated as well?

talisman

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #14,  »
Quote
Actually I got a question after reading you ideas and thinking about magnetism and electromagnetism.

When electric current flows, there is energy loss through heat right, isn't there technically also energy loss from the magnetic field being generated as well?
The energy loss through heat is resistance to the electrical energy such as in a heating element or overloaded metals or materials.

The sum of electromagnetic energy would be the electric and magnetic energy combined as I see it.
They are the same in transformation really. They cannot be the same at a particular time only one or the other as I see it.
So the magnetic field is not generated it is the half of the whole of the electromagnetic field energy. This extension of a theory
would imply the hypothesis of an equal total energy of magnetic field particle to electric field particle universally. 

Cycle

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #15,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Apoc4lypse on February 28th, 2018, 02:27 AM
Actually I got a question after reading you ideas and thinking about magnetism and electromagnetism.

When electric current flows, there is energy loss through heat right, isn't there technically also energy loss from the magnetic field being generated as well?
Depends upon what frame you're in... for instance, in my idea (linked above), there is a frame-dependent current flow around the perimeter of the center rod from the perspective of the rotor... but from the perspective of the center rod, those electrons are stationary... static electricity. And if they're not moving in the frame of the center rod, there's no resistance, thus no heat.

Because of that frame-dependent current flow, and because a magnetic field is an electric field in a moving frame and an electric field is a magnetic field in a stationary frame, we thus have a frame-dependent magnetic field orthogonal to the frame-dependent current flow. This frame-dependent magnetic field acts against the permanent magnet's field to produce a vector force as the two magnetic fields attempt to conserve their angular momentum.

~Russ

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #16,  »
here u go, this might help think outside the box,
~Russ

onepower

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #17,  »Last edited
I stumbled onto the Amasci.com site and Bill Beaty about 10 years ago... and never left. He just has a way of explaining supposedly complex things in a common sense way which is easy to understand. Note he also mentions the Aether and the fact there is no such thing as a sine wave in nature. You see many people have confused the measure of something with the thing they are trying to measure however obviously they are not the same. If you measured the air pressure and a bus passed by you would see a pressure sine wave... this does not mean a bus or air are made of sine waves, lol.

Which is why we need to be very careful about what we think were measuring and what were seeing more so on a DSO. I cannot tell you how many people seem to think a discharging inductor produces a reverse current of negative electricity which is not the case. The inductor discharge current remains in a forward direction and only the voltage polarity has reversed but the induced emf has not because the inductor is now acting like a source. It's actually kind of neat because I took the time to measure and graph the inductor voltage and current as well as the external magnetic field strength and polarity with a hall effect probe and the point charge on the conductor surfaces with an electrometer. It's like seeing all that extra stuff we never see by just measuring the voltage with a DSO and in fact there is much more to it than most think.
Better measurements yield a better understanding of things and in some cases I found that the external magnetic field measurement did not match the current measurement as we have assumed... but nobody would ever know that unless they actually thought to check it. That's what science is all about in my opinion, checking your facts and following through.

Cycle

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #18,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Matt Watts on February 27th, 2018, 07:00 PM
Cycle,

If I could twist your arm hard enough to really read and dig into this, I'll bet in a very short time many dots would perfectly connect.  Granted, it's some tough stuff to get your head wrapped around, but it makes so much sense after five or more attempts digesting it.  The problem I'm having is finding the proper math to work with it.  Quaterions are close, a cylindrical coordinate system is close, but nothing matches Smith's description well enough to do computations.  I'm no quantum physicist, so this stuff is very difficult for me to manipulate.

Anyway, PM me if you decide to take the plunge and I'll start a discussion thread for the topic.
Smith makes a few leaping assumptions without any underlying proof, he's reversed cause and effect in one instance, and I've uncovered an apparent discrepancy in his logic.

He states the universe is linear, then just paragraphs later, he introduces the concept of curl (the sixth parameter) as a consequence of divergence (the fifth parameter), as a consequence of change (the fourth parameter), as a consequence of volume (the third parameter), as a consequence of area (the second parameter), as a consequence of length (the first parameter).
Quote from Wilbur Smith
A corollary of this is that Space is linear no matte[sic] where we investigate it, and this relationship must be accepted as fundamental.
The universe cannot be linear if it has curl. In fact, the theory of gravitoelectromagnetism is predicated upon the universe being nonlinear. If the universe is linear, then the concept of geometrical transform cannot occur, which means space-time symmetry would be broken and electromagnetic symmetry would be broken... we'd live in a very strange universe with space and time being two completely separate things (so we could instantaneously travel from one place to another... or one time to another), all electrical conductors would be superconductors, magnets could not exist and gravity could not exist. Come to think of it, no invariant matter could exist, given that it is the combined effects of the electromagnetism of the quantum vacuum zero point energy field and vacuum polarization which underpins the stability of all invariant matter... so we'd not exist.

So he restates existing algebraic knowledge (length, area, volume) to build the foundation of his model universe, then somehow concludes that length, area and volume somehow bring about change (without stating the reason... remember, the universe is deterministic, nothing happens without a causative reason), then leaps to the conclusion that divergence comes from that change (he's reversed cause and effect here... divergence doesn't come from change, change comes from divergence), which somehow introduces curl (again, without any causative agent to do so, and in direct contradiction to what he'd previously stated about the universe being linear).

He then introduces a "counterspace" kludge, the Control Fabric... which cannot be sensed, measured or operated upon... but it makes his theory work, so it's acceptable to him. You'll remember how I ripped apart Ken Wheeler's 'counterspace' nonsense (in fact, given Wheeler's unattributed plagiaristic pilfering from so many other hobby theories, I suspect his 'counterspace' was derived from Smith's 'Control Fabric' or similar from another hobby theory).

And as if by magic, magnetism and electric fields come into existence with a wave of his hand... the electric field is divergence! He moves on to discussing magnetism and electric fields, all without presenting any data or fundamental explanation as to how they come about in his model universe, he just equates divergence to the electric field and rolls on. His is a mental exercise sans any data, an attempt to explain the universe which falls flat in the face of actual data.

He then goes on to state that our mathematics isn't sufficiently advanced to tackle the concept of how matter came into existence:
Quote from Wilbur Smith
Once Awareness has understood through the application of the Quadrature Concept, the establishment of the first nine Parameters, the further application of this Concept yields three more Parameters which bring Matter and Energy as we know them into being. Again, as in the Third or Control Fabric, we have no tools except our own Awareness and understanding to follow through the evolvement of this Fabric. The two higher Fabrics require much more sophisticated manipulations than our mathematics are capable of to show the relationships existing between the lower Parameters and Fabrics and the higher ones, and at our stage of evolvement we can reach them only through personal mental activity aided by hints and direction from others who have already passed this way.
He discusses electromagnetism prior to the above text, which means he must not realize that electromagnetism is energy. He puts magnetism at the divergence parameter, long before he introduces the "Percipitation Fabric" (remember, an electric field is a magnetic field in a stationary frame of reference, and a magnetic field is an electric field in a moving frame of reference... they're two sides of the same coin). That's a logic hole, to add to the heap.

We know exactly how matter can come into existence, and we can even predict what conditions will bring it about, to an astounding accuracy. In fact, we can even make matter from energy ourselves, as the recent three-photon experiment showed... the three entangled photons came out the other end of the rubidium cloud chamber at 100,000 times slower than the speed of light... a new form of matter (if it were light, it would have been traveling at the speed of light) with invariant mass (light has no invariant mass). They found a way to set up a stable three-photon standing wave in the Higgs field, which is all that matter is... a stable standing wave pinging back and forth against the waves of the Higgs field, still traveling at c (pinging back and forth), but stationary from our frame of reference.

What's amazing is that the researchers didn't immediately recognize that they'd 'created' a new form of matter, describing it as light... and they didn't recognize that as matter becomes more complex, its energy level is lower (reference my recent post about copper having a lower energy level than its constituent components)... at least until iron (the most nuclearly-stable atom) is reached, whereupon the weak force and nucleon imbalance make successively heavier atoms successively more unstable... that's why we have the Nuclide Map. They'll find that four photons entangle even more strongly, and five more strongly than that, etc. Somewhere along the way, they'll discover that they've generated neutrinos (arguably the lightest invariant-mass matter we encounter on a day-to-day basis).

We're on our way to a Star Trek type replicator which can make any matter directly from energy. Still a long way to go, but we've at least taken our first few steps.

I dare say that once they figure out how to reliably generate 'photonic matter' from energy, they'll be able to use the different forms of 'photonic matter' to represent different qubits in quantum computing, and from there it's a short hop to figuring out how to get those different forms of 'photonic matter' to interact to act as a data processor.

And it's only a matter of time before we discover how to capture photons and transmute them into electrons... meaning solar panels with nearly 100% efficiency. In the short term, I'd bet that by entangling two or three photons before those photons hit the solar panel, they'll find an efficiency boost, since longer-wavelength light (converted to 'photonic matter') would now have sufficient combined energy to knock loose electrons, whereas now most of the longer-wavelength photons hitting a solar panel do absolutely nothing but heat it up... so we'd have solar panels which even work at night from infrared radiation.

I'm not so sure I want to follow the teachings of a guy who claims he attained his knowledge from extraterrestrials, rather than from the hard work of reasoning and empirical data gathering.

I'll stick with Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory.

Matt Watts

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #19,  »
Thank you Cycle for taking a read and disclosing some of the items that do not agree with your reasoning.  Not having your background puts me at a bit of a loss so I do appreciate your point of view.  I would agree that some of Smith's concepts do seem overly simplistic and likely unworkable.  I hadn't considered the inherent contradictions--glad you pointed those out.  It's good to have someone like you here to keep us up to date and some of the latest discoveries too.

 :thumbsup:

Apoc4lypse

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #20,  »
Quote
He states the universe is linear, then just paragraphs later, he introduces the concept of curl (the sixth parameter) as a consequence of divergence (the fifth parameter), as a consequence of change (the fourth parameter), as a consequence of volume (the third parameter), as a consequence of area (the second parameter), as a consequence of length (the first parameter).
My opinion on the Universe is that it cannot be defined by a shape or a direction, but I'm no astrophysicist but I do love to read about astronomical phenomenon in particular black holes, stars, neutron stars, quark stars, quasars, the concepts of worm holes, galaxy types and structures, nebula's etc etc...

A belief I held for a long time was that all black holes are connected to one another, not necessarily worm holes as far as the concept of a worm hole goes, but that they share information and mass with one another through either a higher or lower dimension. This is the reason I think the concept of dark matter and what it is completely eludes us because it is matter and mass effecting our visible universe that exists in another dimension but still effects ours through gravitation and accounts for the "missing matter" problem.

The thing is more recently they've been entertaining different ideas and possibilities that take dark matter out of the equation.

I used to spend a lot of time contemplating the fabric of existence while comparing my ideas to astronomical phenomenon... I generally go from studying and exploring the very large as we currently know then to the very small as we currently know and look for similarities and differences.

Anyway not really sure where I'm going with this but I personally think a particle collider in a thought experiment where it had unlimited time, power and speed would find infinitely smaller particles all with different attributes assuming they continued to capture the smaller particles and collide them also.

The same goes for a thought experiment with a hypothetical telescope that was infinitely powerful in terms of being capable of seeing every type of field and spectrum. It would see infinitely and there would be no end to anything just more and more combinations of the same infinitely small particles that a particle collider without limits would be capable of finding.

Hence why I think the universe has no shape or definitive direction.


Coming back to reality though, we don't have such a thing as an infinite particle collider or an infinite telescope, so we draw conclusions based on what we can see and measure. The problem is measurements can never be completely accurate, and we can only see so far, so our universe will only ever be what we can see and measure. Sure we don't see gravity but we see its effects, we don't see magnetism or electric fields normally but we see its effects. This is why Dark Matter fascinates me, we don't see or understand it and the only effect from it we see is the speed and momentum of galaxies that shouldn't be held together without some mass or matter we can't see.

Another thought is that it could just be a misunderstanding of space-time so while were looking at all this mass moving too fast to stay together, there could very well be some other aspect of space-time we've yet to consider that accounts for it...

I personally think any particle can be divided with enough energy and that inside every particle is actually an entire universe which is really just a part of our universe. I'd say we live in a Multiverse but that name is kind of discrediting to the original definition of a Universe. To me the word Universe always meant, everything that exists, and multiple universes to me would mean, multiple everything's of everything that exists. How can you have multiple everything's?

This brings me to consciousness and the concept of everything technically including anything we can imagine, will do, have done, seen, or will see. Our consciousness can experience all of this which is why we have an imagination... in the back of our minds we already know everything is infinite. Which is why we can come up with so many unique ideas and why we keep exploring for more physical understandings to bring the nonphysical we choose into existence physically by any means we can come up with.

So anything we can imagine is actually physically possible somewhere and sometime because there are infinite possibilities and combinations of energy. The reason everything we can imagine isn't possible is because were not just one physical consciousness but a collection of them all imagining different things and ideas that all work together creating our physical reality.

I know it sounds like crackpot ideas, but this is why I love the hive mind experiments that they've done because it shows when peoples minds come together that they can even begin to attain partially accurate predictions of the future. After all what is a group of people working together on a project other than a bunch of people imagining the existence of that completed project all at the same time and eventually physically bringing the subject of the project to life. Technically they all predicted that their goal would be attained and worked together to make it happen, so technically they predicted part of the future even if they physically worked on making it happen they still all had to imagine it first, and it happened.

This is why I think Paranormal occurrences are so fleeting with very little evidence because for evidence to exist one is testing the idea, so they are questioning the idea, so it becomes more and more unlikely.

If you want to achieve something aren't you going to achieve it more quickly if other people believe it can be done and help your idea, rather than having people question your goal and even explain to you why its impossible.

If your determined, the explanations as to why it isn't possible won't stop you because you find a way around the obstacles presented by being creative and imagining how else it could be possible, and because the universe is infinite the only thing questioning an idea will do is make it take longer to manifest depending on what physical boundaries it has or have been presented to you in your life and by others. This is also probably why the most creative arts seem to come from people who have struggled a lot or been presented many obstacles because they had to find ways around those obstacles that perhaps no one else has encountered so they're ideas end up being very unique.

This is where I think Science is failing us, its become so fact based that all we are left with is obstacles, the question is will we be able to uniquely imagine a way around the obstacles or will our facts hold back our imaginations from discovering solutions to the obstacles. To me it almost seems as if Science is holding back some of its best hypothesis right now because it is holding onto too many facts.

Its like trying to move forward through time while also holding onto too many physical parts of the past at the same time...

What if many of our facts are just misunderstood supposed practicalities that everyone agreed were true but because we can never fully measure something accurately they were actually just an interpretation of different attributes we didn't fully understand at the time.

This is why I think we need to rethink how science approaches problems and hypothesis.

Anyway this ended up being more of a rambling on physicality than having anything to do with magnetism sorry for that. I just read the quotes from that other site about the universe being linear and how people love to claim the nature of the universe when in actuality we understand such a small part of it we really don't know what is possible.

Kudos if you actually read all of that.

TL:DR - Things aren't always as they seem.
Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #21,  »Last edited
Back on the subject....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_inductive_coupling

I find these things very interesting. I know its a Wikipedia link but Wiki can often times have the shortest quickest explanation of something if your just looking for a basic understanding on how it works.

What I love about these is they are using a magnetic field from one coil to transfer energy through space into another coil.

Something I've been trying to deduce is whether or not it is possible with what materials and devices we have. Can you create an electrical circuit or coil system that gives off a magnetic field in such a way that the magnetic field given off is used to generate more current back into the existing circuit which would then increase the magnetic fields and create more current within the circuit sort of making a feedback loop of electricity and magnetism.

The only part I can't find an answer for yet is... Will making the magnetic field made by the circuit more complex slow down the current within the circuit, and once something is used as a means for inducting the magnetic field back into the circuit will it also further slow the existing current down and end up equaling out the current losses with no increase in current at all...

So I've been reading about Transformers and Resonant inductive couplings. A transformer moves energy from one coil to another using a core, and a Resonant inductive coupling can move energy between coils with no core from what I understand, or two coils that resonate with one another so when a current flows through it the magnetic field created generates an electrical current in the second coil.

This was why I asked if there is any energy loss from the magnetic field made by a current earlier.

If there is, and there's a way to capture it back into the circuit making the magnetic field, it should create more current and stronger magnetic fields and more and more current.

Cycle

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #22,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 2nd, 2018, 09:57 PM
I used to spend a lot of time contemplating the fabric of existence while comparing my ideas to astronomical phenomenon... I generally go from studying and exploring the very large as we currently know then to the very small as we currently know and look for similarities and differences.
I do the same. My latest 'thing' is wondering if the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) isn't the photonic-decoupling afterglow of the Big Bang, but is instead a 'funhouse mirror' effect of red-shifted radiation from the stars in very distant galaxies as they speed away from us. Sort of like looking at a distant object through a heat mirage. If so, we stand a chance of using something similar to telescopic adaptive-optics to look far beyond our current cosmological particle horizon, which would give us a lot of information.

This idea is bolstered by the fact that CMB temperature does not increase as much as predicted when we look out further (back further in time) into the universe... if it'd come from the decoupling of photons from matter in the Recombination Epoch after the Big Bang (when universal energy density fell sufficiently that electrons and protons could recombine, leaving the universe transparent and photons free to transit the universe unhindered), then the further back in time we looked, the hotter the CMB should be, and in fact for galaxies really distant from us, we should see the CMB so hot that star formation cannot take place. Stars are formed when interstellar molecular clouds undergo gravitational aggregation, which can only continue as long as the contracting molecular cloud can get rid of its increased gravitational binding energy by thermal radiation into open space. So the CMB radiation in the vicinity of the gravitationally aggregating molecular cloud has a strong effect on whether that contraction process does or does not occur. Looking back in time (out into space), we can see that stars are forming at the farthest reaches of our ability to see them. So there's a discrepancy in the current theory.

In order for the CMB to be as homogeneous as it is today, the universe would have had to undergo an unperturbed Robertson-Walker cosmic expansion, and yet we see today that the universe is dominated by a highly-structured, inhomogeneous matter distribution. Thus, fitting a symmetrical Robertson-Walker space-time geometry expansion to a universe with 'lumpy' matter distribution is dubious, which further bolsters the above idea. A steady stream of red-shifted photons from distant galaxies beyond our cosmological particle horizon, presenting a relatively homogeneous "smear" of background radiational energy seems to be at least a plausible alternative to the current theory with all its flaws.

I'm also wondering this:
The current science says that the universe is expanding at a rate of ~67 km/sec/mparsec... or 67 km/sec for every megaparsec of that expanding space.

So if we look out one megaparsec (3.26 million light years), we see galaxies going away from us at 67 km/sec.

If we look out 10 megaparsec (32.6 million light years), we see galaxies going away from us at 670 km/sec.

If we look out 100 megaparsec (326 million light years), we see galaxies going away from us at 6,700 km/sec.

If we look out 1000 megaparsec (3,260 million light years), we see galaxies going away from us at 67,000 km/sec.

Now, we also know that when we look out into space, the further we look, the further back in time we're looking, because light takes time to travel to us (299,792.458 km/sec).

Let's rearrange and reframe the above:
3,260 million years ago = 67,000 km/sec.
326 million years ago = 6,700 km/sec.
32.6 million years ago = 670 km/sec.
3.26 million years ago = 67 km/sec.

How is that not classified as deceleration of the expansion of the universe?

Matt Watts

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #23,  »
 :rofl2:

Cycle, you're already an information overload.

 :-D

How much more information do you need?

 :thumbsup2:

Apoc4lypse

Re: Thinking about magnetic particles
« Reply #24,  »Last edited
lol, I've thought the same thing about space and distant galaxies when taking into account the speed of light, and that because it takes time for the light to reach us everything you see is technically something that happened in the past...

I think there is no such thing as the expansion of the universe, it just is, it only seems to us to have expanded because of what we can see or think we know.

I wonder if there is actually no such thing as time... its just something we use to describe past and future events.

What is it called the Mandela effect that supposedly current events actually change the past and future not just the future.