Alien space craft show the lensing effect of our solar system

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


thank you for your post
i would like to add some thing
both stars would have a lensing effect on each other
ie
imagine you are looking through a pair of binoculars backwards at a pair of binoculars that are forwards that has a light behind it one pair of binoculars (observer) would make the image seam further away than it acually is the other would be mgnifying the light to the correct size and amount of light we would expect to see




the perspective of the veiwer X is that the object Z is much further away than it is A
but the relitive size of object Z is preserved in perspective through the binoculars closest to object Z

the relitive size is correct but the reletive distence A is an optical illution

tryed to keep it simple


xploder

If there were some truth to this, and solar systems and galaxies may actually be closer than we think...

Wouldn't that also mean our Universe could be much younger than we think?

reply to post by Signals

Don't think this is the case in fact:

Researchers say this new use of gravitation lensing provides a very precise way to measure how rapidly the universe is expanding. The measurement determines a value for the Hubble constant, which indicates the size of the universe, and confirms the age of Universe as 13.75 billion years old, within 170 million years.

Source:www.universetoday.com...

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
But if stars and other massive objects are a LOT closer to one another than they appear, why doesn't gravity draw them all together? The astronomical distances are essential to maintain the balance of the universe.

i have been thinking about your question (its a good one)
even with gravatational forces at play the universe is expanding faster and faster
galaxys are also expanding at an increasing rate
just as mass creates a dimple in space time the geodesic mass bends space time theory thing
i beleive there is a theretical bump corresponding to the amount of energy released by the sun
so that at further distences mass and energy bering masses have first a repulsive then attractive force against one another

just a theory

xploder

Interesting theory!

I do happen to believe the speed of light can be broken. In 1998 scientists measured the effects of quantum entangment. What Einstein called, "spooky action at a distance." They found that the two entangled somehow "communicate" at 10,000 times faster than the speed of light. However, they didn't measure a velocity leaving General Relativity intact.

Mainstream science seems to be lacking a definite explanation for both gravity and time. Einstein said, "Time is something a clock measures." Is a second on Earth the same as a second in distant galaxies? The answer is, we don't know. This is important because we base many formulae and "laws of physics" on time. Example, Speed=Distance/Time. Any formula that uses time or gravity for a result is shaky, at best, on a cosmological scale. What is measurable here on Earth does not make it true elsewhere! A provable example of this is seen when General Relativity falls apart at the atomic level...hence the rise of Quantum Mechanics.

If we were witnessing a "lensing effect" when we looked into space, I think there would be a serious amount of anomalies when different "types" of telescopes are used to look at the same thing. We use Dobsonian, Refractor, Reflector, Radio, and Infrared telescopes to look and measure objects in space. When you look through a pair of binoculars backwards or a "fisheye" lens, do you notice notice how some object become slightly distorted? These types of distortion would likely become apparent when looking into different areas of space. Astronomers use many different types of information to support their theories, not just light through telescopes. Electromagnetic waves from distant Pulsars, Redshift from distant galaxies...Radio astronomy seems to corroborate what we are seeing through our telescopes.

My advice to you is:
Use the Scientific Method. You have already formed your theory, now test it!

Unil we ourselves visit distant stars and galaxies its all just theory, at best! Good luck

reply to post by Signals


if our veiw of light is that
light can be bent around mass because of space time distortion (gavatational lensing)
but it is not effected by gravity only by gravitys effect of the medium light is in
so if we measure distance by some thing we beleive is a constant that is not because of bends in space time and the lensing effect and then
add the optical lensing effect described here and all our calculations to do with distence is incorrect
and so would the hubble constant (used to measure universe expantion)

Hubble's initial value for the expansion rate, now called the Hubble Constant, was approximately 500 km/s/Mpc or about 160 km/sec per million-light-years. ...

because the calculation used involves light years then my theory says yes it may be younger
remeber that everything would be proportional to the lensing effect including expansion of the universe



you have brought up a VERY good question

if light can be curved by space time distortions caused by mass does that mean that it can be attracted to bends in space time as a path of least resistence ?

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


in my opinion all telescopes would be effected by the lensing effect similar to gravitational lensing
in my opinion the modulation would be equal across all spectrums and not noticeable inside the helio sphere
if we were out side looking in we would see it

24v@ 1 AMP before (example light) =24 watts
12v@ 2 AMPS after modulation =24 watts

40v@10 AMPS before (example infra red) =400 watts
20v@20 AMPS after modulation =400 watts

if all waves are modulated by a common source then they are all still relitive to one another

thanks for the reply ill contact nasa and ask for a probe for my theory

xploder

At first I thought the OP was talking about a space craft using a lensing effect technology, so I was a little lost in the thread. Regardless an alien craft still has a long ways to go, and we have observation of UFO's here on Earth, and their behavior and flight characteristics have been noted, there are many theories on how to construct one.

What I'm getting at, a lensing effect is not going to be that substantial to distance. Unless you're going to tell me Alpha Centauri is at the edge of our solar system.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by QuantumDisciple

 

"in my opinion all telescopes would be effected by the lensing effect similar to gravitational lensing
in my opinion the modulation would be equal across all spectrums and not noticeable inside the helio sphere
if we were out side looking in we would see it"

Light does travel at different speeds through different media. Light from distant stars travel through all kinds of different media. It first has to escape the heliosphere of the star that created it, the ISM (Inter-Stellar Medium), our own heliosphere, and in most cases Earth's atmosphere. In it's travel through all these different media we can measure, using the "Refractive Index," what effect the media has on C. Light is strange. It acts like a wave and sometimes as a particle. It has no mass and is not affected by gravity. As light leaves one medium and enters another the propogation of waves change. This change is measurable. Radio frequencies act like a wave as well and also travel at the speed of light. Almost all astronomical bodies give off a EM radio wave. These waves act differently than light when traveling through different media. EM waves tend to expierence absoption which leads to a weaker signal. In radio astronomy interferometry helps with this issue. Multiple radio telescopes are used, at a distance from eachother, and the images are overlayed. This effect is much like the way 3D cameras work. The information gathered by radio telescopes show that what is seen, optically, through light gathering telescopes are for the most part correct.

If everything outside of our heliosphere is being viewed as a "mirage" or optical illusion, in terms of distance, there would be a massive discrepancy in what is "seen" through a radio telescope. For example, a radio telescope would view Andromeda as either bigger or smaller than what is seen through a light gathering telescope...but this is not the case. What I am saying is if there is an illusion for optics a radio will catch it...Can you help me understand why this isn't the case in your theory?

Thanks

reply to post by XPLodER


You may also want to look into what are called "Long Period Comets." These are comets with extremely long orbits that enter and exit our heliospere. The Hale-Bop comet what first viewed near the Oort Cloud (which is outside the heliosphere). When it transitioned into our heliosphere no real change was seen...

I'm glad that people are interested in scientific topics & planetary science, but unfortunately the hypotheses in this thread don't really hold up.

It isn't always as simple as putting idea A plus idea B you've heard of and think you have a breakthrough.
There is always some oversimplification and story-telling in popular accounts of complicated physics. Much of this oversimplification is not discussing the boundaries or domain of applicability where a given physical effect is important.

In a nutshell,

a) yes, light is affected by gravity
b) yes, light is affected by physical media in various ways (refractive index)

but no, these effects do not have any substantial effect of light in a planetary system and you can assume the speed of light in the solar system is c. The actual quantitative sizes of the effects matter. These details you don't always read about in popular accounts; you have to know somewhat more about the physics.

Going to topic (a) gravity.

Yes, there is gravitational lensing and that is a consequence of General Relativity. But in truth the size of the effect on a solar system is utterly miniscule---to get observable gravitational lensing you need a mass the size of a galaxy---or a fat cluster of galaxies. General Relativistic effects are very very weak.
There is another effect on light which is more directly applicable, but even still it is extremely small, the gravitational redshift. Coming out of a "gravity well", e.g. from surface of Earth out to the sky, or from the Sun outward into the heliosphere, light will be ever slightly redshifted. But the size of the effect for Earth size or Sun size masses is very small. (it is necessary to take it into account for the most precise GPS measurements! GPS works thanks to from extremely accurate atomic clocks in orbit).

In any astronomical observations of the planetary system, GR has no substantial importance.

Topic (b), index of refraction and "change in the speed of light".

This change in the speed of light is real---but it is only an 'effective" change, not a true physical change.
And it only happens when, as in say a piece of glass or water, the wavelength of the light is far longer than the size of the atoms making up the solid or liquid material. Optical wavelengths are a few thousand atoms long, so from the point of view of a single atom, light is a long wave swishing through it. What is happening in a lens is that the electric field from the light is stretching the electrons of the atom apart from the nucleus a little bit, and when this rebounds (think of a spring) it will emit its own electromagnetic radiation (light), but slightly delayed because it took some time to stretch the atom. When the wave is slow everything happens in synchronization so it seems as if the original light is traveling at a slower speed. But more correctly light still travels at c but is being continuously absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms in a piece of glass.

If the light were small and strong, say a gamma ray then that acts more like a bullet. The collective effect doesn't apply and you'd measure the gamma ray as going at 'c' through the glass just like it would through free space.

The interplanetary medium is far far far far too diffuse for the index of refraction to be substantially different from the free space value (i.e. 1, where light travels at c). After all, the index of refraction of air in normal atmospheric conditions is very close to 1 (unlike glass), because air is much less dense than glass. And the stuff in the solar system is much less dense than this.

(in this I have some expert knowledge, I am a physicist, though not working professionally in planetary observations)

reply to post by mbkennel


Thank you for your expertise!

What direct effect does gravity have on light?

I was under the impression that gravity effects the space/time that light travels through but not the light itself.

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


i have been looking into the amounts and types of gasses that the helio sphere bow wake is encountering and they are unexpectedly magnetic and resist compression and are described as local fluff .

Physicists Slow Speed of Light

now if super cooled atoms in a vacum can slow light down and have it behave like a wave and slow down in speed then we can agree that light can go slower than 299 792 458 m / s

in the right conditions we can observe light traveling slower than the speed of light?(question)
if light slows down when super cold interaction takes place with other atoms then
inversly as the co efficent of heat is increase the speed of light inversly should speed up to its max 299 792 458 m / s


we are surrounded on all sides by an energetic gas cloud that resists compresion or dispersal
what speed does light travel in this unexplained medium that is both more hotter and magnetic than we had inticipated the aera between the helio sphere bow wake and the helio sphere is of a different density than the hot gas cloud outside it
the higly energetic particals of hot gas are being forced around the helio sheath like the bow of a ship behind the bow wave forcing its way through the gas cloud compresing an energetic envolope around it but this fluff doesnt compress
inside the helio sphere we have solar wind expelling energy to the helio shock
each one of these boundrys has a distinct change in mediums from one to another


the fact that a long range comet travels in and out of this lens effect has no bearing on the optical hypothisis because we cannot travel through the boundry on the comet and veiw it from the out side looking in we canot see the distortion
from the inside

if mass can bend space time what does producing a massive bow wave in the mass of the gas cloud do?
there are massive amounts of gas particals being redirected around the helio sheath bow wave that are unexpectedly 4-5 micro gauss more energetic than expected and resists being compressed and are thousands of degrees hot

this sounds like a different medium for the light to travel through considering there is a boundry like a bubble keeping all this gas out (except for some neutral atoms that are not electrically charged)

does this bow wave redirect enough mass of gass to have an effect on the curvature of space time?
is this dynamic interaction boundry created from a magnetic or electric effect because there is no mass present to be parting the gas

the red shift of stars (example of compatability with red shift)
the lens effect is compatable with red shift as the same calculations are used and observered
the only difference noticed is a slight colour change from red to orange if the shift was observered out side the helio lens

this effect is only observered from out side the system and i think all frequencies including radio telescopes would be modulated at the boundry in an equal manner my theory is that the bubble or ripple around tthe helio sheath is creating a lens and all waves through the lens are proportionally effected

if mass can bend space time to create a gravitationanal lens
can the electrical or magnetic effect that is parting massive amounts of hot gas also effect space time by the share amount of mass in the bow wake

a bubble of space time curvature from hot magnetic gas flowing around a spherical (egg shaped) region of space generated by the sun

i like your text book answer to the speed of light thing but im not trying to say anything can go faster than light
i am saying in an optical sence that if a geodesic wave of compressed space was present at the boarder of this boundry it would effect everything leaving and entering into the helio lens equally

how would we know its there?

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


I thought it might have been something like that but your post confirmed it

And to the OP, that's a fascinating idea though I wonder how the effect matches up with the speed of light, as in, even if this effect you're suggesting was happening, just how much of a difference would it make?



-B.M

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


i propose a bending of space time at the helio barrier similar to mass
this is similar to the lensing effect around objects of great mass except it is an electrical or magnetic effect and instead of creating a "dent" in space time/density this electrical or magnetic effect creates a dimple in space time/density
this dimple is repelent to charged particals, as paticals are traveling up the curve they are diverted around and over the dimple similar but oposite to the way mass would dent and attract mass this dimlpe is up on the flat plane of space time in the clasical model and any charge or medium would be parted as there motion encounteres this curvature of space time

xploder

reply to post by B.Morrison


example

imagine being in a bubble of air in 100% pure water
everything under water that you see will be magnifyed and seam closer to you and larger in size (10%)
now imagine that process in reverse
where everything seams smaller and further away (10%)
there is a 20% change in size or distence to the object observered depending on perspectives

now imagine there is two bubbles of air in pure water on with you in and one with the object
both bubbles will magnify each other and the object will seam closer but smaller
now imagine that example in reverse
the object will look further away and larger in size a 20% perspective change per bubble = 40%

there are two distinct boundrys of different density mediums (like the water) in each bubble
so factor the first lens effect against the outter lens and the change in perspective increases by factors of the first lense into the second lense manifying the effect exponetially

then the same double lensing effect is happening at the star being veiwed
think binoculars in reverse making things apper further away than they are

i have no idea what the distence between these stars would be from each other

xploder
but if the distence is alot less then

i am suggesting that our neibour stars are not as far a we thought

reply to post by XPLodER


If we were to be on the outside looking in would we appear magnified in your theory?

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


out side looking in objects would look larger or magnifyed

there is two distinct lenses doing different things amplifying the effects of each other
1. the reflective optical type lens effect
2. the curvature of space time and parting of the gasses at the outter boundry lens

the very small optical effect is amplifyed by the curvature of space time in the outter lens to factor the effect of the lenses together

as the diagram shows different directions of perspective would have different effects




acording to thickness at the encounted lense and angle encountered different effects are possable
have a look at the lens shapes picture posted on page 1
depending on what angle you veiwed from would depend on what the scale would be

xploder

if you are getting at how space craft can travel such long distances,i had an experience when i was younger,i was having a pee near this dried up river bed,when i noticed on my left a woman walking up the embankment leading from the riverbed she was wearing a grayish silver overall,familiar face,shoulder length fair hair,she just walked up to me smiling,bent down and did something to my left leg,i was still standing there peeing,when she finished what she was doing she looked up at me,and i said thank you,as if i knew what she did,she got up and walked down the slope to the river bed,i came to my senses and ran after her,when i reached this bush that was at the bottom of the slope that was blocking the view of the river bed,there was this small vehicle looking thing with a man sitting on the left with his arm laying across the back of the seat,she seemed to lift her leg over the side of the vehicle and sat next to him,he was looking in my direction and lifted his arm and waved,the vehicle started to get this shimmer all around it,the image of it wobbled and then it was just gone i didn't take of and fly away,what i am trying to say is,that they might not have to worry about how we think of distance,i believe they somehow leave our space time and can pop in where ever they want.

reply to post by XPLodER


That being said, as we look at other stars all of which have heliospheres of their own don't you think they would appear magnified as we look through their heliosperes? Or it would have a strange affect like looking through a magnifiying glass through a pair of backwards binoculars? As the size of the heliospheres of different stars vary depending on their mass wouldn't we see varying effects of this? Or when we look at a galaxy that doesnt have a heliosphere around it but the stars inside it do, wouldn't this affect how proportional the stars look?