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: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Hi, can you please attack the information being discussed in the thread rather than trollishly attacking the OP on a personal level? This is an interesting topic with two competing views and I'm learning a great deal here. The topic is not *lets gang bang the OP and pat ourselves on the back like we won the Special Olympics*.

People look more intelligent when they can discuss the information. Thanks!




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

Are you a moderator, or just a freelance internet policewoman?

My point is that the OP is incapable of making the intellectual distinctions necessary to discuss a subject - any subject - intelligently.

As for you, you have demonstrated nothing on this thread apart from your aggressive antipathy towards real science and your eagerness to be duped by the dishonest, evasive tactics of the OP. Your responses to buddhasystem and arbitrageur are full of elementary howlers and show that you are completely out of your depth discussing these things - just as the OP is.

When I want your advice, I'll ask for it. In the meantime, mind your own business.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Are you a moderator, or just a freelance internet policewoman?


Man. I would rather see the topic discussed as I find it interesting. Attacking off topic on a personal basis is not the topic of this thread. If you have any intelligent arguments against any of the points raised, I would be more than happy to hear them and take them into consideration and discuss them with you.


My point is that the OP is incapable of making the intellectual distinctions necessary to discuss a subject - any subject - intelligently.


I'm sorry, what was your point again? I failed to see any intellectual distinctions necessary to discus this subject intelligently. All I notice was an ability to personally attack. Was your point to be a hypocrite? I'm confused now.


As for you, you have demonstrated nothing on this thread apart from your aggressive antipathy towards real science and your eagerness to be duped by the dishonest, evasive tactics of the OP. Your responses to buddhasystem and arbitrageur are full of elementary howlers and show that you are completely out of your depth discussing these things - just as the OP is.


I wouldn't go so far as to say 'aggressive', that's just a bit of a stretch of the imagination. Now, I have admitted that I don't know a whole hell of a lot and a lot of what I do post is of my own opinion based on the evidences given by both sides. The OP makes for very compelling evidence in my opinion.

Being given pictures and told to pick out a certain few galaxies in certain alignments in which to see the gravity lensing effect which looks nothing like the computer animated simulations does not make very compelling evidence for me.

If you have anything more to add in favor of their argument, I would love to see it, look it over, and let you know what I think. This isn't a competition or a pissing match or a who's d**k is bigger beauty pageant. If you would like to add something intelligent rather than waving your member around like a dolt, I would be greatly appreciated, as I said I'm learning quiet a bit here.


When I want your advice, I'll ask for it. In the meantime, mind your own business.


Welcome to the thread. Build a bridge. You post, you get responses. Don't like it, move along as this thread is not for you.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


OK, interesting video, but I don't see the same effect from their simulation in that pic still. I'm also curious about something else now! In the video you gave, it said something about gravitational redshift, when light passes through a gravity field, it get's more red-shifted, or something like that. If that's the case, then how are they measuring the distances of the galaxies behind these gravity lenses that are apparently strong enough to distort that light?

Why 13 billion light years away from the gravity lens rather than say... six billion light years? How are they making accurate predictions? Do they know the exact mass of the galaxy doing the lensing and the galaxy being distorted and are factoring that into the calculation or are they just using redshift as a means of guessing the distances without factoring in the gravitational redshift effect?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
1st, if the arcs that are being pointed out are supposed to be gravitational lensing, why do they appear so far away from the parent galaxy? Shouldn't the bending of light due to gravity happen right up against the object with the gravity, where gravity is the strongest rather than almost non-existent?

2nd, that redshift chart that shows galaxy redshift vs distance, how is the distance of the galaxy calculated? Isn't it really a redshift vs brightness graph(and the distance is assumed to be directly related to brightness)? If they were wrong about redshift and quasars, why should we believe redshift can be used for galaxies?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
1st, if the arcs that are being pointed out are supposed to be gravitational lensing, why do they appear so far away from the parent galaxy? Shouldn't the bending of light due to gravity happen right up against the object with the gravity, where gravity is the strongest rather than almost non-existent?


I was thinking that same thing too. Like I was telling them, I can pick and choose a bunch of arbitrary galaxies and show arcs that are no where near the alleged objects causing the gravitational lensing.



2nd, that redshift chart that shows galaxy redshift vs distance, how is the distance of the galaxy calculated? Isn't it really a redshift vs brightness graph(and the distance is assumed to be directly related to brightness)? If they were wrong about redshift and quasars, why should we believe redshift can be used for galaxies?


The chart that was provided had nothing to do with the pictures giving in this thread at all. That chart tells us nothing about the distances of the galaxies that are allegedly being distorted. To me they all look like normal galaxies and look nothing like the galaxies provided in the explanation/simulation video that was provided. That chart was falsely given when asked for information on the distances of those galaxies in the pictures provided.

Like the OP was saying, we're getting lied to. I get the whole "I want to be right" thing, but Jesus Christ, at the expense of having to lie and delude oneself and then give false information to bolster their argument? That does nothing more than hurt their credibility in what they're saying. I may not know everything about this subject, but I'm not that clueless to not notice that I'm being lied to.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


OK, interesting video, but I don't see the same effect from their simulation in that pic still. I'm also curious about something else now! In the video you gave, it said something about gravitational redshift, when light passes through a gravity field, it get's more red-shifted, or something like that. If that's the case, then how are they measuring the distances of the galaxies behind these gravity lenses that are apparently strong enough to distort that light?

You don't see the way that simulation bends the lights around in arcs and how that compares to the way we see light bend around in arcs around massive galaxy clusters? OK maybe I'm wasting my time with you if you can't see the comparison.

That's a good question about gravitational redshift, but if you paid more attention, I think you could answer it yourself, as indicated by "or something like that" in your answer. It's not "or something like that", it's that light is gravitationally redshifted when leaving a star's gravitational field. Now first, note this effect occurs with all stars and galaxies. Remember the graph I posted on the previous page showing the redshift correlation with intensity/distance being a straight line? (reposted below). The line can be represented mathematically like all straight line as y=ax+b. We can get the distance y from measuring the redshift x. The face that everything on that graph is redshifted due to the effect you mention is included in the constant b which can shift the whole line a little bit but it doesn't affect the slope of the line, a, which is known as the Hubble constant, that's what gives us the distance. Actually to substitute the correct symbols in the line equation we have this:

Hubble's Law


The law is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality (the Hubble constant) between the distance D to a galaxy and its velocity v.

NASA summarizes existing data to indicate a constant of 70.8 ± 1.6 (km/s)/Mpc if space is assumed to be flat, or 70.8 ± 4.0 (km/s)/Mpc otherwise.
I usually use 71 since they aren't sure how precise the 70.8 is anyway.

Now you may ask why does that equation show the Hubble constant and not the other constant I talked about? Because the gravitational redshifting is usually small. The gravitational redshift we see from our sun I calculated to be 0.000000591. Now if you add or subtract that number from 5.58, the redshift of the distant object you were asking about, it doesn't change the 5.58 much, does it? The effect becomes more significant with extremely massive objects, but again all those galaxies clusters in the graph below are massive. The fact that some are more massive than others might be a small part of the reason why they don't all fall exactly on the line.

Now that video referred to light becoming redshifted when leaving a gravitational field, but look at the diagram in the video showing the light going through the gravitational lens. Is the light entering, or leaving the gravitational lens? If it's entering, it will be blueshifted, if it's leaving, it will be redshifted, and if it's doing both which is what the diagram shows, it will be both blueshifted when entering and redshifted when leaving, now can you guess what the net effect of that is? I think you can, that's why I said I think you could answer that yourself if you paid more attention to the video.


Why 13 billion light years away from the gravity lens rather than say... six billion light years? How are they making accurate predictions? Do they know the exact mass of the galaxy doing the lensing and the galaxy being distorted and are factoring that into the calculation or are they just using redshift as a means of guessing the distances without factoring in the gravitational redshift effect?




As I said, they are using the straight line on that graph for distant objects.
Regarding the accuracy, if it were perfectly accurate, every measurement would fall exactly on the line, and it doesn't, so there are slight errors that we know about by looking at that graph. But it's a pretty good estimate, since the dots don't fall too far off the line, right?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
1st, if the arcs that are being pointed out are supposed to be gravitational lensing, why do they appear so far away from the parent galaxy? Shouldn't the bending of light due to gravity happen right up against the object with the gravity, where gravity is the strongest rather than almost non-existent?


I was thinking that same thing too. Like I was telling them, I can pick and choose a bunch of arbitrary galaxies and show arcs that are no where near the alleged objects causing the gravitational lensing.


Look at the simulation in the video I posted. It actually shows a VOID around the object causing the lensing, when the simulated black hole passes in front of a galaxy, we see black on the middle, and the galaxy lensed in a circle around the center of the lens. So the math and the simulation actually shows the circles or arcs NOT forming right next to the object doing the lensing. So the math, the simulations, and the observations all agree.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



You don't see the way that simulation bends the lights around in arcs and how that compares to the way we see light bend around in arcs around massive galaxy clusters? OK maybe I'm wasting my time with you if you can't see the comparison.


If I pick certain galaxies then I can see something similar as when the galaxies are on the outer edge of the distorted space, but the full effect itself from begin to middle to end, I don't see anywhere in the picture. Without the known distances, I can't tell if these galaxies are being distorted or if they are just aligned to a point where we can pick out a pattern showing distortion if we look for it.

When I look at the picture in it's entirety, I don't see anything distorted. I can see galaxies within the range of the supposed distorted ones that are not distorted, but then I'm told they are closer even though some of those are dimmer than the distorted ones, which brightness/redshift is supposedly a marker of distance, so a dimmer galaxy should be further away than a brighter one, hence it should be distorted as well.

I'll try my hand at gimp and see if I can circle what I mean. Maybe that will help with the explanation better.


That's a good question about gravitational redshift, but if you paid more attention, I think you could answer it yourself, as indicated by "or something like that" in your answer. It's not "or something like that", it's that light is gravitationally redshifted when leaving a star's gravitational field.


I only said that because I forgot the exact wording used in the video and wasn't sure if I got it right. It wasn't really a matter of not understanding it, as I get the concept, I just don't see it myself.


Now first, note this effect occurs with all stars and galaxies.


Where is the effect in this picture then?



I see a bunch of galaxies near enough to each other that I *should* see a similar effect, but I don't see it there either.


Remember the graph I posted on the previous page showing the redshift correlation with intensity/distance being a straight line? (reposted below). The line can be represented mathematically like all straight line as y=ax+b. We can get the distance y from measuring the redshift x. The face that everything on that graph is redshifted due to the effect you mention is included in the constant b which can shift the whole line a little bit but it doesn't affect the slope of the line, a, which is known as the Hubble constant, that's what gives us the distance. Actually to substitute the correct symbols in the line equation we have this:


I get what the graph is, but it was falsely given as it had nothing to do with the question it was given to supposedly answer. I'm curious about the distances of the galaxies being used as alleged evidence of gravitational lensing. I didn't ask for an explanation on redshift/distance correlation. I get that part.


Now you may ask why does that equation show the Hubble constant and not the other constant I talked about? Because the gravitational redshifting is usually small. The gravitational redshift we see from our sun I calculated to be 0.000000591. Now if you add or subtract that number from 5.58, the redshift of the distant object you were asking about, it doesn't change the 5.58 much, does it? The effect becomes more significant with extremely massive objects, but again all those galaxies clusters in the graph below are massive. The fact that some are more massive than others might be a small part of the reason why they don't all fall exactly on the line.


While small, over time and it's travel in and out of various galaxies gravitational fields, wouldn't that add up to something? Like, it may appear that the galaxy is in one spot at one distance when it's really not?


Now that video referred to light becoming redshifted when leaving a gravitational field, but look at the diagram in the video showing the light going through the gravitational lens. Is the light entering, or leaving the gravitational lens? If it's entering, it will be blueshifted, if it's leaving, it will be redshifted, and if it's doing both which is what the diagram shows, it will be both blueshifted when entering and redshifted when leaving, now can you guess what the net effect of that is? I think you can, that's why I said I think you could answer that yourself if you paid more attention to the video.


I don't understand that bit there. If galaxy A is moving towards us, then I get the blueshift and if galaxy B is moving away, then I get the redshift. But, if galaxy B is moving away, then why would it get blueshifted just for entering a gravity lens? I don't see how gravity would make the light suddenly move towards us to the point of blueshifting it.


As I said, they are using the straight line on that graph for distant objects.
Regarding the accuracy, if it were perfectly accurate, every measurement would fall exactly on the line, and it doesn't, so there are slight errors that we know about by looking at that graph. But it's a pretty good estimate, since the dots don't fall too far off the line, right?


I get that, but it still doesn't answer the question on the exact distances of the objects in the provided pictures.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Look at 2:05 in the video, there is nothing like that in the pictures. I still don't see the effect, how do I know those galaxies aren't aligned that way and we're just looking for a pattern because we want to see a pattern? None of them look stretched or distorted to me.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Look at 2:05 in the video, there is nothing like that in the pictures. I still don't see the effect, how do I know those galaxies aren't aligned that way and we're just looking for a pattern because we want to see a pattern? None of them look stretched or distorted to me.


I was wondering the same. I suspect that there are no lone black holes out there. So this lensing is only caused by galaxies. So this extreme distortion will be obscured by the galaxy causing the lensing. Just speculating though, I think Arbitrageur can answer it better.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Look at 2:05 in the video, there is nothing like that in the pictures. I still don't see the effect, how do I know those galaxies aren't aligned that way and we're just looking for a pattern because we want to see a pattern? None of them look stretched or distorted to me.


I was wondering the same. I suspect that there are no lone black holes out there. So this lensing is only caused by galaxies. So this extreme distortion will be obscured by the galaxy causing the lensing. Just speculating though, I think Arbitrageur can answer it better.

The distortion effect should be somewhat similar whether it's a black hole doing the lensing, or a cluster of galaxies doing the lensing, the main difference is what's in the middle. In a the black hole animation, you see nothing in the middle (not even the black hole). I think that was chosen for the animation to place the emphasis on what the distortion effects look like, and not distract that with the image of the lensing mass.

Many of the other images we've been looking at are using galaxy clusters as the lens, so we see some bright lights in the center, and the arcs would have a centerpoint in the direction of the bright lights (the galaxy cluster) as I showed in this image:



We haven't posted any images lensed by a black hole, so maybe that's why you're thinking it looks different from the animation? But the distortion looks the same as at 2:05 in the video, the more distant galaxies are curved into arc shapes. See also the photos I posted in the middle of page 9 and compare those to 2:05 in the video.

One other factor to consider, the the black hole animation is a "theoretically perfect" point source for the lens, so the distortions are perfect. In galaxy cluster lensing, the lensing is imperfect because the way the galaxy clusters are distributed isn't equivalent to a black hole point source. The clusters are spread around a little bit non-uniformly so we get a little bit of distortion in galaxy cluster images depending on how the mass in the galaxy cluster is distributed.

One example in the image above can be seen by looking at the leftmost arc I drew a circle around. Follow the arrow to the bright light (a galaxy) and look a little above that and you'll see a faint nearly horizontal line with an arc slightly downward but almost straight. Why isn't this one arced as much as the rest? Because it's in the middle, so we can see there are galaxies both above it, trying to curve it up, and galaxies below it, trying to curve it down. The effects partially cancel but it looks like there might be a slight curvature downward. Now this is an effect you would never see in a black hole animation because the black hole's gravity is a point source, and the mass of the galaxy cluster is spread out, allowing distortions like that one.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I spend a great deal of time on red shift and gravitational lensing in this video.


I watched a little bit and I'll watch more when I get time. So far I've seen the part about quasars, they are interesting and amazing.

I like the way you use qualifiers like "scientists *may* be lying to us" however I would add that it might be more correct to state that they "may be wrong (or mistaken)", which is an unintentional falsehood, versus an intentional falsehood.

By the way we should all be a student and not a follower of what the mainstream tells us, so I think it's good to question what we are told. I have some issues with some of the things scientists tell me about string theory, membrane theory, 11 dimensions, multiverses, and basically anything with no observational evidence as proof of the theory. They could be right or they could be wrong, but if there's no proof there's no way to tell. And they could be and probably are wrong about some things where they do have proof and have misinterpreted the proof.

But in the case of Halton Arp for example, it's not like he's even in the "minority view", in his own words he's sort of out there all by himself with his views, he can't convince even ONE prominent professional, as he said on his website:

www.haltonarp.com...

Referring to his NCG 4319 "bridge" with Markarian 205, he says:

Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.


I did a higher resolution analysis than the one he posted, and I don't see the bridge either, and I have no reason to "lie" as I'm not seeking any funding, I just want to know the truth. In fact that's why I did the analysis, I wanted to KNOW, not take someone's word for it, either that of Arp or of a mainstream scientist.

I suspect I've seen many of your arguments before in your threads, but you come across so much more polite in the video, so far, and I'll let you know what I think after I watch the rest of it.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
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.



ORLY?

Here's an entire institute dedicated to anarcho-capitalism:
mises.org...

Oh wait, here's another one:
c4ss.org...

I think the only person here that doesn't have a clue is yourself.


www.walterblock.com...
Walter Block, an Austrian school economist and anarcho-libertarian philosopher

www.stephankinsella.com...
Stephan Kinsella, Austro-Anarchist Libertarian

www.hanshoppe.com...
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Austrian Economist and Anarcho-Capitalist Social Theorist

etc... etc.. etc..

Obviously men who have doctorates in this field would say you are wrong about anarchy and capitalism.

Anarchy rejects State government, it does not necessarily reject private property.

Anarchy does not necessarily reject law either. Anarchy rejects State sanctioned law. Private law works better than State tyranny.

I'd get into it further, but I think its enough to simply discredit your nonsense for now.


Anarcho-capitalism
en.wikipedia.org...

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would be rendered moot.



[edit on 25-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
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.


I repeated this a few times but it doesn't seem to sink: you can't expect the same quality "lensing" from a bag of rocks as you would expect from your fine digital camera. Unless you bash it on a hard surface to ensure the glass is sufficiently broken.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That's not true about Arp being all alone.

Margaret Burbidge, Martin Lopez-Corredoira, Jack Seluntic, Geoffrey Burbidge
, Anthony Peratt, etc..

Here's a series of documentaries that were produced on Arp's work with a number of astronomers and cosmologists standing up in Arp's defense.

video.google.com...#

video.google.com...#

In fact a number of astronomers talk directly about Mk 205 in the first video.

There is a bridge between them.





[edit on 25-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That's not true about Arp being all alone.


Maybe but what I quoted were HIS words from HIS website. He didn't say nobody agreed with him, but apparently he doesn't think any of the people who agree with him are prominent professionals.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That's not true about Arp being all alone.


Maybe but what I quoted were HIS words from HIS website. He didn't say nobody agreed with him, but apparently he doesn't think any of the people who agree with him are prominent professionals.


I'm not sure why he said that, because you can watch the documentaries of him along with a number of other astronomers all saying there is a clear bridge there.

Perhaps the article is simply old.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I have a few more choice words for you was well.

You have lobbed nothing but ad hom attacks and have, yet again, provided no rebuttal information other than simply stating I'm an idiot that has no idea what I'm talking about.

However, in the same breath, you claim that I'm simply regurgitating information provided by other physicists.

Clearly if I am an idiot, then by definition, all of the physicists and cosmologists I reference must also be total idiots, since you are claiming I'm apparently incapable of formulating my own opinions.

Perhaps you should just butt the hell out of this thread if you have nothing productive to offer.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm not sure why he said that, because you can watch the documentaries of him along with a number of other astronomers all saying there is a clear bridge there.

Perhaps the article is simply old.


I'm guessing the age is about 3 years old. His site seems to be down right now but I found it on the wayback machine, which says it was updated July 27, 2007, so while not yesterday, it's not ancient.

www.haltonarp.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Wayback Machine

I believe it was about August 2009 when I found that on his website so he hadn't updated it between July 27 2007 and August 2009.




top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join