It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by sirnex
I see no reason to believe that the still images show gravitational lensing and not just normal ring systems around galaxies.


Take a careful look at this:




I have taken a close look at that image.

You know what I see? Circular streaks of plasma around a galaxy cluster.

The galaxies themselves show no distortion. The streaking of plasma is laid right over background galaxies with no evidence of light distortion what-so-ever.

As is so often the case, things are not so cut and dry.

Here we see a gigantic ring system in the xray spectrum around a different galaxy cluster.

www.nrao.edu...

Such ring systems have absolutely nothing to do with gravitational lensing and everything to do with the electric nature of galaxy creation.

I'd also like to direct your attention to magneto-optical effects such as self-focusing, in which charged plasma can change the refractive index of light passing through it.




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Circular streaks of plasma around a galaxy cluster.


Wherever you look, sir (maybe including your closet) you see streaks of plasma everywhere.

Thing is, in this and other cases, under inspection the "streaks" do exhibit structure of galaxies, albeit in a distorted image.

But of course it's all Devil's handiwork...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


If I have the picture 'small', then I suppose it can be misconstrued as being 'lensed', but when I make it big, the effect seems to go away. Even at that, it's really not that noticeable and seems like I have to stretch my imagination based on picking out a few galaxies in certain positions.

Reminds me of the piss poor excuse for quasars that are connected to galaxies by a stream of matter. They want us to believe it's just chance alignment for every single instance of such things.

I just don't see it in any of these pics being posted. Am I supposed to pick and choose just the ones that "look like" they form an arcing pattern, or do I look at the picture as a whole and decide from the many galaxies going in all sorts of directions showing no arc patterns?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Man! You really hate Einstein.... Interesting non the less.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Reminds me of the piss poor excuse for quasars that are connected to galaxies by a stream of matter.


What is piss poor in that picture?

upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Did you look at that pic you just now posted? They circled a few things aligned whilst ignoring everything else not being "lensed". I feel cheated looking at that.

What is being "lensed" there? Why are some galaxies being picked out and said to be being "lensed" while galaxies right next to them are not? I don't get what you see there, I just don't see it at all. I'm not going to pick and choose, perhaps an animated gif of the effect would help?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Did you look at that pic you just now posted? They circled a few things aligned whilst ignoring everything else not being "lensed". I feel cheated looking at that.


Your statement is false, on the face of it. There is a bunch of objects that were distorted into arcs.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


What kind of a rebuttal is that? "Your statement is false"?

You can *clearly* see galaxies within that picture right inside the supposed 'arc' that are obviously not being "lensed" in any way shape or form. You litterally *have* to pick and choose only those galaxies aligned in certain ways to even begin to see an arc like pattern emerge. Quick glance, it just looks like a jumble of galaxies oriented in every which way from Sunday.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


When you use a magnifying glass, it only magnifies things on the other side of the lens.

Gravitational lenses work the same way. Objects completely unaffected by the gravitational lens are likely in front of the lens instead of behind it. Right?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


OK, well is there any more information on this then giving precise distances of each galaxy? It's hard to make a reasoned judgment based on a jumble of galaxies that may or may not indicate a gravitational lens effect without being given the distances of the galaxies in the picture. It could just very well be just what it appears to be, a mess of galaxies in every which direction with an arc being seen if one cherry picks certain galaxies in certain directions.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Arguing with these people is like arguing with people that see the face of Christ in bread toast.

Its clear that there is no distortion of light coming from the background galaxies.

None.

The circular streaking of foreground plasma can not be a "lens" of any type.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
It could just very well be just what it appears to be, a mess of galaxies in every which direction with an arc being seen if one cherry picks certain galaxies in certain directions.


I'm sorry but there are plenty of arc in this pic, and there is no need to cherry pick anything.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Where are the arcs? I didn't see any unless I looked really hard and picked a few galaxies here and there aligned certain ways to make arcs. It's like trying to say that constellations are real. Just because you can pick out a pattern doesn't mean that the overall scheme of things is definitive of that pattern being real, you know what I mean?

Unless I can find or be provided the information on the distances of every galaxy in that picture, then I'm calling out BS cherry picking pattern inventing.

When I look at the picture as a whole, I do not see any gravitational lensing. If I pick here and there, then yes it does look like it might be, but picking and choosing is not correct science.

@mnemeth1

If they're so damned positive and sure it's clear indication of gravity lensing then they should be able to provide the precise distances of all the galaxies in the pictures. Why would anyone cherry pick patterns without knowing the distances involved? If they don't know the distances involved then they can't use those pictures as valid arguments, not even close. It's just laughable nonsense.

I might as well go to church is this crap is being called science. What's the difference, right?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
If they're so damned positive and sure it's clear indication of gravity lensing then they should be able to provide the precise distances of all the galaxies in the pictures.


I'm not sure about "Precise distances" but there are approximate distances. But you don't seem to believe anything we're telling you anyway, so wouldn't it be better if you looked up the galaxy distances yourself?

I think even mnemeth1 agrees that redshift is an indicator of galaxy distance, it's just the recessional velocity argument he disagrees with. So the galaxies with lower redshifts are closer in both models, look up the redshifts. But it's not a perfect correlation. I think this is the same graph mnemeth1 posted in his big bang thread:



If the redshift to distance correlation was perfect, they'd all be in a straight line, and some points are a little off the line, so it's a good indicator, but not "precise".



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Is that a graph for the picture that was posted? I'm interested more in the exact distances of each galaxy, like a list of sorts and which object is the supposed object causing the lensing effect.

IDK, I just don't see it and I can't accurately tell where these galaxies are in relation to each other and to the object doing the lensing, so I don't feel that I can't just arbitrarily say that it's definitive evidence of lensing.

I can pick out pretty patterns in the stars all night, but what does that exactly mean? Does that mean all the stars are the same distance in relation to each other and are really aligned in those pretty patterns? Or does it mean I'm just arbitrarily seeing patterns because I'm purposefully looking for them?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by sirnex
I see no reason to believe that the still images show gravitational lensing and not just normal ring systems around galaxies.


Take a careful look at this:



That's a good image. Do you know the ID of this galaxy cluster? I circled some lensed images and tried to draw arrows toward the centerpoint of the arc they form, and most of the arrows point to that big bright galaxy cluster in the center. I think the two white images in the upper right with the starburst pattern are stars, and I think most of the rest of the objects are galaxies.



Sirnex, can you see those arcs?

And they look nothing like the galaxy rings. This looks like a galaxy cluster lensing more distant galaxies.

If you look carefully you can see a whole lot more lensed objects I didn't circle, especially on the right hand side, but there are more at the bottom also.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Sirnex, can you see those arcs?


Yea, I see the ones you circled and I can also circle others that aren't even near those bright ones in the center.

Again, I can't say this is definitive proof without knowing the distances of the arbitrarily circled galaxies in relations tot the assumed object causing lensing.


And they look nothing like the galaxy rings. This looks like a galaxy cluster lensing more distant galaxies.


Your talking about two different pictures as if they are the same. The first so called picture was of one galaxy, this one is of many going in all sorts of directions.

The original picture did look like a galaxy ring, this one I can equally pick arbitrary galaxies not near the assumed object doing the lensing and also appear to show arcing.


If you look carefully you can see a whole lot more lensed objects I didn't circle, especially on the right hand side, but there are more at the bottom also.


I noticed them, but I also noticed galaxies next to what appeared to be a group of galaxies arcing that were oriented the wrong way. Without knowing the distances between all galaxies in comparison to the assumed object doing the lensing, then I think it's just an silly exercise of futility in claiming this is definitive proof.

Until I see distances then I don't see any gravitational lensing going on. I'm not trying to be a party pooper, I'm just trying to be honest here. You can't go OOOH LOOK! without knowing all the details. Do you know all the details or can you point them to me, or are you just going oooh look?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

Here's some distance information:
Abell 2218: A Galaxy Cluster Lens
apod.nasa.gov...



Almost all of the bright objects in this released Hubble Space Telescope image are galaxies in the cluster known as Abell 2218. The cluster is so massive and so compact that its gravity bends and focuses the light from galaxies that lie behind it. As a result, multiple images of these background galaxies are distorted into long faint arcs - a simple lensing effect analogous to viewing distant street lamps through a glass of wine. The cluster of galaxies Abell 2218 is itself about three billion light-years away in the northern constellation Draco. The power of this massive cluster telescope has recently allowed astronomers to detect a galaxy at redshift 5.58, the most distant galaxy yet measured. This young, still-maturing galaxy is faintly visible to the lower right of the cluster core.


That redshift of 5.58 is very high. That puts it at over 13 billion light years away!!!

Here's an excerpt from a lecture by Alex Filippenko explaining gravitational lensing with some good photos and a good animation:


(click to open player in new window)



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Yeah, I got my own video that debunks that nonsense.

References to peer reviewed journals are presented in the video and links to most of those papers can be found here.

Playlist

I spend a great deal of time on red shift and gravitational lensing in this video.





[edit on 25-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by QuetzalcoatlAlien (on p.5 of thread)
 


Einstein strongly embraced Socialism and agreed with many of its ideas so the "Anarcho Capitalist" has a deep resentment towards him, it's obvious!

You touch on an amusing point.

The absurdity of the OP's thinking is perfectly encapsulated in those two words: anarcho-capitalist.

Capitalism depends on the right to own private property. Anarchy doesn't recognize private property. The two are fundamentally imcopatible; you can't practise capitalism without the protection of laws and law enforcement. Anarchy is lawless by definition.

The OP's misuse of these terms shows that has not the faintest idea what they mean.

His concepts of physical terms are equally erroneous. His invocations of actual physical laws and principles are mumbo-jumbo. Never in any thread has he been able to explain a single one of his electric-universe claims himself. When asked to explain anything, he provides links instead: links to crank sites or bona fide science pages that have nothing to do with what he's talking about. Clearly his own understanding of the matters he speaks of is insufficient for him to explain things in his own words.

Be assured that his physics is as absurd as his politics.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join