Did ATS user Xploder Give Science a Boost?

reply to post by getreadyalready

When my professor first started running his probabilities and modeling, he was often skewed to the bottom right of his plot map. He worked for many months trying to account for it, and last time I talked with him, he had chosen to simply adjust and center the image. I don't know if he ever found a programming error, or an inconsistency in Einstein's formula, or if there was possibly another source or reason that the computer model was skewed in relation to what we see in real-life observations.

Would your dark matter theory, or a second gravitational source that is invisible account for everything falling into place, yet skewed at the same time?

i would explain the trouble your having as best as i can
the position of the mass is skewed compaired to the light the mass is giving off because the light is not where the mass is
let me explain

the mass physically is where it is
the light that we pick up is not where the mass is there is a "modulation" occouring of the light as it enters the heliosphere we are "seeing the modulated position of the objects" with light and energy coming from them being subjected to different mediums and densitys and conditions encountered through the helio sphere boundrys
but we are seeing the effects of the gravity locally where it acually is.in the case of looking at a gravatational lense through a lens
think about it like this
example
you have grabbed some one elses glasses they are sharp focus but the distence displayed is further away then the desk acually is you can still touch the desk so its physically there
in a larger sence depending on the angle you encounter the lens the bigger or smaller the effect
and at the right angles to the lens the objects may seam "off center"
this is the problem as i see it in THEORY

xploder

reply to post by Nventual


lol a smart kiwi huh well i guess you are smart too to be on ats so
earnest rotherford was a kiwi = splitting atoms
not the first smart kiwi lol

xploder

aussies aye we have imagrated and increased the average IQ lol

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
Nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the short-comings of others is there giftofphrophecy?

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but personally, I'd question how much of a 'genius' someone who confuses planes taking off on an obvious and repeating flight path with UFO's can be.

I know you didn't create this thread and I don't mean to offend you, Xploder, but the the thread title is utterly ludicrous. A 'boost to Science'? Laughable. ATS is a wonderful website with many intelligent contributors, but I think the likes of CERN, Fermilab etc can handle the major scientific discoveries of the future without us. Also, many of 'your' theories are similar to theories and research data readily available to anyone on the internet. And the ones that aren't, well.. almost anything is possible in the Universe, so literally any theory is very hard to refute, but at least you do display some original thinking. Again, I don't want to insult you personally, I'm just giving reasons why this thread is FUBAR. A valuable contributor to ATS you certainly are, but a scientific genius I'm not so sure.

reply to post by Project-Sign


i will try to releave some confusion about the theory the op was refering to
my theory is not einsteins rings or ensteins gravitational lensing but heliospherical lensing and galaxy lensing
all though the two seam very similar in nature and indeed my theory uses distortion in space time like einstein my idea is that this bending of space time and lensing of density and mediums has two sources.
the first is an optical effect from the lenses of heliosphere, helioshock and heliosheath the second is a bend in space time as plasma in the form of a cloud encounters the helio boundrys and are parted around it

this explains some inconsistencies of direction of location of the einsteins rings or gravitational lensing observered through the helio lens and is not observeable from inside the helio lense.
draw a quick diagram to explain.



when the helio lens is encountered with a zero angle of incedence from our telescopes to the object we are looking at, the object "image" is distorted to look further away than it acually is and other lenses like einsteins gravitation lenses are encountered in a "straight" (curved) direction

in the diagram below the angle of incedence with the helio lens is at an angle and the image displayed from the helio lense refraction is offset from the expected "veiwed" location of the lense. this also effects the "represented" location of the object behind the gravitational lense.

imagine a bubble in 100% pure water with you in it.
imagine another bubble 1 meter away with a candle in it.
from your bubble straight on to the center of the other bubble you see the bubble magnifyed so it appairs bigger than it is. the light from the candle still looks the same but the candle "appairs" smaller.
now travel through the bubble so you are in water looking at the same candle but this time it appairs the correct size (not acual size) but the light still remains constant.

now back in your bubble and move your observable position (eyes) up and down relitive to the center line of the bubble.
you will notice the "image" of the candle move up and down in the other bubble because of the varying amounts of water between the bubbles distorting the observed location of the the candle without it moveing inside its bubble.
and the different angles of incidence at the curvature of the bubbles produce an offset effect to the acual location of the candle. and although very small amounts of lensing occour there are multipule lenses amplifying the effects.

when we take into account this "shifting image" or distorted perspective relitive to the observers position we can relate that to the disparate amounts of gravity and observeable images of the objects creating that gravity.

this may effect the dark matter issue and has implecations that lenses other than einsteins gravitational lenses may be distorting our "observable universe" like the galaxy lense i have proposed and the helio lense.

i prefer idiot savant over genius lol
i did not start the thread but feel compelled to explain my theorys and defend my ideas
i dont think any nasa guys read my stuff but you never know lol

xploder

reply to post by Divine Strake

15 December 2008


well in this artical the aurthor mentions the "macrolensing" of a galaxy
and the additional lensing "micro lensing" of suns as they move in their home galaxys
this micro lensing was predicted by me independanly i am an independant hobby astro physist
i called it heliospherical lensing.
i dont know from the artical who proposed this "micro"lensing (helio sphereical lensing)
but it was predicted by one of my theorys independantly from reasurch being done

In addition to macrolensing by the galaxy, stars in the lensing galaxy act as secondary lenses to produce an additional magnification. This secondary magnification is based on the same principle as macrolensing, but on a smaller scale, and since stars are much smaller than galaxies, is known as “microlensing”. Because the stars are moving in the lensing galaxy, the microlensing magnification also changes with time. From Earth, the brightness of the quasar images (four in the case of the Einstein Cross) flickers around a mean value, due to microlensing. The size of the area magnified by the moving stars is a few light-days, i.e., comparable in size to the quasar accretion disc.

The microlensing affects various emission regions of the disc in different ways, with smaller regions being more magnified. Because differently sized regions have different colors (or temperatures), the net effect of the microlensing is to produce color variations in the quasar images, in addition to the brightness variations. By observing these variations in detail for several years, astronomers can measure how matter and energy are distributed about the supermassive black hole that lurks inside the quasar. Astronomers observed the Einstein Cross three times a month over a period of three years using ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT), monitoring all the brightness and color changes of the four images.

linky
actualites.epfl.ch...

if we can observe these micro lenses in other galaxys it gives credence to our helio sphere also having a micro lensing effect on our observations of objects outside our helio micro lense. (heliospherical lensing my term)

XPLodER

reposted from ats thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

THEORY FOLLOWS

the super massive black at the centre of our galixy is the source of all energy or vibration for our galixy it sets up a "field" in space for matter to interact in this "feild " consists of an energy in a form we are yet to measure.
for every atom that interacts with this "feild" two things happen
1. vibration or energy is imparted into the atom
2. angular momentum or spin momentum is imparted into the atom

the energy cannot be created or destroyed law or conservation laws are by definition explaining to us that matter as energy canot be destroyed yet the more matter a black hole consumes the smaller it gets.
some will say that this is because black holes contain negitive energy and this balences out the positive energy and cancells out any incoming matter/energy but when a black hole is too small it will explode with a gamma ray burst
.
so if the energy has been balenced or accounted for where does the energy for this gamma ray burst come from?
it is more likely that gamma ray emmitions are a constant and are an indication of an energy release from the black hole.




energy released from the pole reigions is slightly higher than the energy consumed at the equator from consuming matter/energy and this accounts for the fact that the black hole is shrinking.
this energy travels in lines like lines of magnetic force out the top around and through the acreation disc or galactic plane encountering matter at right angles to the direction of travel and imparting angular momentuim to the helio spheres of the stars and there systems as a whole.

the shapes described above and below are areas where the energetic nature of the "field" lines are consentrated and have a greater chance of interacting whith photons and creating a gamma ray interaction
like the arouras at the poles of earth


in my opinion there is a interaction that can be described as small close lines concentrated but slower moving
in the center medium sized lines moving at a medium speed at a medium concentration and at the outter lines the concentration is much lower but the speed of travel for the lines of force is higher

in this way the closer mass to the center it gets the more it interacts with the strengh of the lines of force the further away from the center you get the more its the speed of the lines imparting more angular momentum
in this way there is a inverse square propotional to the strengh/distence and and inverse square to the speed/distence of this "feild"

Xploder. . . will be working on you avatar soon. I did personally note the differences in the title of the effect, micro, macro, heliospherical. The creation of that which is known sometimes is only visible when no one is looking.

reply to post by Divine Strake


thanks
i have had some more interesting ideas
first watch this video The Dark Matter Mystery: Stars Are Moving Too Fast


if a lens is effecting the scale size of the galaxy all the other equations are in error the mass speed and mass distence calculations would be incorect
if the image of the galaxy was taken from a curved lense this would explain the flaws in the maths

an object at the center of a lense would be magnifyed to the outter edge of that lense
an off center object would be smaller and less bright or even hidden from veiw



the top diagram shows magnifycation from a spherical lense
the second diagram shows the original object, and a reflected "image" both of which are obscured from veiw from the observer

in this way unless the object is at the center it is relected to the outter edges outside observable angle

a simple trick of spherical lense optics is to hide the size of some matter and to amplify or magnify anything at it center point.
in this way enough mass to create the lens could be hidden in the lens explaining the whole mess
lol

XPLODER