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.

 

natural optical prism effect causing observed red shift (like gravitational lense)

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
If sky is blue when over head but red when on the horizon does the red shift (optical) is simply that the light has to travel through more medium density?, could the shape and orientation and angle of incidence of the galaxy create a similar change in optical colour?. If a galaxy is side on to our angle of incidence and light must travel through a denser medium on its path to us is that “extra density” the cause of “optical redshift”, similar to the blue sky= short travel red sky= long travel in the medium density, we observe on earth?.
When looking at the heliosphere from the outside there is an atmosphere that surrounds our star with a medium density of gas, similar to own own earth atmosphere except it extends out to 10-20 au from the sun. The closer to the suns gravitational force the denser the medium and the further out the thinner the medium. This provides a “changing” medium density for light to travel through and affects the “refractive index” of the medium. As we know different densities of a gas medium affect light and its “refractive” properties, is there a blue sky/red sky correlation between the path light takes through our “solar” atmosphere in the same way as light is “optically” shifted in our own atmosphere?.
If light starts out at the sun in a dense medium and travels away from the sun in an ever decreasing medium density, what is the effect on the refraction and colour of the light. At the edge of the medium density “gas bubble” where the gas cloud stops abruptly and light must travel through a new medium at a boundary, does this affect the speed at which light travels in the new medium? If the boundary has an effect on the light, what is the effect and does it provide for a minute shift in spectra associated with the optical shift predicted?.
If by the same mechanism, light entering a solar “bubble of gas” must be subject to the same set of rules but in reverse. Light must “transverse” the boundary layer into the new medium, into the new refractive medium and alter to accommodate the new conditions encountered. Is there a shift in optical colour when transversing this boundary and does this compress the light wave?
If all light were subject to the density and refractive index of their “solar bubbles” using conservation of energy laws would necessitate as shift of light as the light enters a new medium density, and a shift of light when leaving a new medium density. As an effect light is “stretched” upon leaving and compressed upon entering our “solar bubble” in an optical sense, and information encoded in the spectra of the light may be distorted.
If the observer was looking inside our galaxy medium at another star the light would first be emitted by the star into a density that gradually lessens and then the light would have to adjust to the new medium density at the boundary, and travel through the galaxy density medium, then transverse the boundary of our stars “solar bubble” into our stars increasing solar density and to us here on earth.
In effect the light would be “stretched” or red shifted as it left the “solar bubble” of the star we were observing and then be “compressed” as it entered our own “solar bubble”. The amount of gas and the density encountered would alter the refractive index and “shift” the properties of the light we observed.
If the medium density (refactive index) of the “solar bubble” we were observing was higher than our own, we would observe red shift from that source. If our “solar bubble” density was higher the refetive index would be higher and the light would be “shifted” or compressed into the blue.
This effect is compounded by the medium density of galaxies, the same transitional boundaries are expected to have the same affect on light as light leaves and enters galaxys, so that whole galaxies can be blue shifted if the medium density (refractive index) is lower than our parent galaxy. If the galaxy we are observing has a higher medium density, the light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum.
One observable mechanism would be smaller mass stars with lower medium density and smaller “gas bubbles” would observe mostly red shift as from their point of view all light is shifted more from another star than the “bubble” around them shifts or compresses the light back towards its original state. Ie if we were surrounded by a massive “solar bubble” with very high refractive index most of the stars in the galaxy would be blue shifted to us.
Our star is smaller and our “solar bubble” is less dense than most of the stars we observe and as a consequence we observe almost universal red shift in the stars around us in the Milky Way. If our star was much larger and had greater mass, it would accumulate more gas and provide a much denser medium for light to travel through. The analogy would be the light has to travel through a more dense medium in a higher refractive index and like the evening sky appear redder and if in a lower density, lower refractive index medium light would be blue.
So in conclusion
If our sun were larger and more massive and as a result had a denser medium and higher refractive index, most stars would be blue shifted to us. If our galaxy was more massive and had a denser medium and higher refractive index, light from other galaxies would be blue shifted to us. If the densities, shapes, angle of incidence, and mass of two galaxies were identical there would be no shift observed. Light must shift to account for different reflective indexes in different mediums and must shift to conserve energy relative to new medium densities encountered, this is to comply with conservation of energy laws as light changes speed in a new medium.
Could blue shift and red shift be described as different medium densities (refractive indexes) causing different amounts of compression or expansion of a wave as it propagates through three mediums, and is a result of conservation of energy laws, applied to three medium density calculations equates to an overall shift in one direction or another unless equal in density (refractive index).
There is an amount of shift associated with Doppler shift as seen with rotating galaxies and moving stars but this is an effect of the transition boundaries moving as opposed to the actual stars movement. This enables the “galaxy boundary bubble” to have an effect on shift, as the “galaxy bubble” expands, it affects the light transitioning the boundary and causes incoming light to shifted as it has altered the medium density and amount of medium light must travel through.

edit on 28-2-2011 by XPLodER because: change tittle




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The reddening of light when it's scattered by particles is NOT redshift. Redshift happens due to the Doppler effect, when a star is moving away from us (blueshift if it's moving towards us). en.wikipedia.org...

The scattering of light by particles is called Rayleigh scattering. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


thank you for the links
i understand the "accepted" version of the source of red shift as a recesional velocity and cosmological expansion of the universe and also the gravatationally induced red shift
it is my understanding that the recesional red shift you have aluded to is acually caused at a "transitional" boundary of the medium densities (like a telescope would) between two lenses (solar medium densities) rather than from the acual velocities of recesion of the stars themselves
an anology would be if the "solar bubbles" were described in terms of a "telescope" interaction and the outer boundries were "lenses" in a space based "telescope" that directly imaged the light wave from the source from the outer boundary rather than the star itself
in this way the "telescoping" effect would work like a "gravatational" lense except the light would be "shifted" rather than magnified (example only for explination of effect)
in this way the two "lenses" (solar bubbles) would affect light in the manner described as "red shift"

xploder



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


as an example i would like to use prisms
a light source is refracted through one prism (stars solar bubble outter edge) under observence
the light travels through a medium density between the first and second prisms (galaxy medium density)
and encounters the second prism (our stars solar bubble outter edge)
the light is first shifted by the first prism
travels between the prisms to the second prism
and is then shifted back by the second prism
if the shift is greater by the first prism than the second the light is shifted back by the second prism then red shift is observed.
if the shift is greater in the second prism than the first the light is shifted then blue shift is observed

the key point is the interaction is between the prism strenghts to determine shift amounts
it is my humble opinion that the specta shift is caused by the varying strengh of the medium densities encountered (prisms in this example) but directly between the prisms

i suggest a natural telescoping effect is created and this is the source of red or blue shifts in a similar manner to shifting lenses in a telescope to gain focus in an optical sence.

xploder



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Hi, only just got yours post from google.
Via: A distortion of very-high-redshift galaxy number counts by gravitational lensing
Do you have a copy I can download?

My advice is. Good Call!
But don't let the brightening cloud your brain particles,
as brevity is said to outlast jubilance. We're probably not the first postulate this.

Very glad to hear of some numbers have been crunched on the subject.
Tidal conservancy is a question I asked of a cosmological physics lecturer
at Uni of Sheffield UK 17yrs ago, and he said "Umm, d'know" at the time.
Probably punting for students.

On the subject of Gravitational Lensing or Hyperbolic Tidal Conservancy,
I only started to put questions out more seriously about a year ago.

One of a number of Q's (till I read the latest paper) for me is
'Gravitational and/or Electromagnetic InterStella/Gallactic/Cluster Filament Medium Attraction/Deflection.
i.e. Could this also explain Youngs light slit experiment. (atomic-corona beam-diffusion)

(Think of the observed Anomalous Black-Body lensing. The base of the stars image is obscured,
but the base of the stars image is seen in the space above the Anomalous Black-Body
and (squashed) into the unobscured field of view.
And what we see is the stars base image light pulled back down to our line of sight.
For light to have its trajectory altered requires an additional ''''angle of ''trajectory rotation'''' energy'',
above that of inflow and outflow gravitational forces.

(1) Tidal Momentum Opposing-Side Differential)
That energy, detracted from the obscured 'photon particle sinusoidal +/- beam' ((((wwOuw boy))))
that detracted energy, across the vast ether of InterStella/Gallactic plasma filament (medium)
would accrue over large distances, (and maybe even with time). ((((double wwOuw boy))))
And on the balance between (gravitational) acceleration and deceleration would double it, +/- a bit.

I'm currently leaning towards electromagnetic a-flexion of trajectory through InterStella/Gallactic medias,
though the ?broad-band omni-spherical electromagnetic attraction? of large mass bodies (gravity)
might also be an additional force. (? say Galaxy Centres, planets, asteroid belts etc?)
Its not that two halves of a large mass body don't have gravity of there own,
its just that combined they have a focii, hence the greater the distance of action
away from the observer, the greater the 'height' of observable angle above the gravity body.
i.e. non escaping light is drawn to encounter the gravity body and
escaping light on a hyperbolic trajectory needs sufficient altitude
to miss the gravity body and be pulled back to a hyperbolic line-of-sight trajectory.
If the escaping light trajectory has insufficient altitude above the gravity body,
then the in and out gravitational attraction would pull the hyperbolic orbit
on a tighter orbital trajectory at an angle too oblique for line-of-sight.
That InterStella plasma also has heat may provide
a further reason for Galactic Lensing
as Heat Shimmer/Deflection.
On the planes of perspective we're dealing with,
light trajectories can also be marginally raised, another form of
Curved Space. But not curved, just denser and therefore (radiation) hotter and of greater relative pressure.

If I was a photon going at light speed I'd probably try to glide above the hot stuff
rather than losing time and energy trying to force my way through the middle. (((erm, anyhoo)))
As we know, 'Gravitational' Red-Blue-Shift (spectrum shift) is a proven observation.

Oh doG, I've just read some of the reviews of that paper,
They aren't exactly going for Vatican Counts Jugular, are they?
But it does chime with Galaxy Centres as gravitational 'trajectory shapers/detractors'.
If the light from the obscured z=10 distant galaxy has to be whipped back to our line of sight,
then the principle of a matter light sling-'short' effect is closer to being set.

Another Q (clue) is, Where is all the Dark Matter?
No need. As the observable universe just got smaller (and older). (((heel boy heel)))

Background Long-Wave Radiation?
= Tired Light from the Unobservable Universe. Obviously.
(uups, anti tired light ...... magnet just switch on, oh well)
How young is Humanity still nearly at the centre of the universe. (((the doG sits, pleadingly)))
As photon beams from a multitude of unobservable/distant and low radiation sources
and medium-near low-radio decaying source (I'm speculating there),
if they arrive to us 'on-blanket', what discernable difference.

Time dilation and curved space, even 17yrs ago,
never appeared anything more than mathematical
symptoms of normal gravity from Special Relativity.

I just started a wander into a reddening sunset. But think I've read somewhere,
and seen come to think, different pollutions (motorway corridor) giving hues
from various ends of the spectrum. I get your thought though.
What’s the difference between particulate reflection and diffraction?
Is it the atomic-coronal diffraction or airborne luminous reflection?
That fact that the solid object colours we see are the objects non-absorption spectra,
leaving the object with all the other colours except that that we see
has only just confused me now. Is that right.

It's late, and I have an argument paper for non-toxic non-REA reliant
District PV Parity Balancing Compressed Air Engine Cars and Refill Stations to finish.

If yourself or anyone has a copy of
A distortion of very-high-redshift galaxy number counts by gravitational lensing.
I can download, it would be much appreciated.


Earth Lorv
Iain


Being a Steady-State Universer just got a step less creationist and a bit more factual.
If the conclusion is more z=10 galaxies, is that greater distance or greater resistance
in terms of InterSpace plasma medium?
Or is gravitational lensing separate to that, and about to make the observable universe
even less dense. Presumably if gravitational lensing produces more RedShift than previously expected,
then the question is: To watt '?Ke/u' degree?
If it can happen at the gravitational level, it can happen at the molecular/atomic level.
i.e. Vis Versa equation minus rotational angle energy (possibly in/out flow orbital-attractor-rotation
as 'one radii element' detractor to Vis Versa) carried out for InterStella plasma/planetary densities/distances,
for observations 'shot-through' galaxy disks; and
InterGallactic/InterCluster and Mass Empty Radio Space densities and distances,
for the rest.

i



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by verdanarch
 


copy of my thread a significant gravitational lensing bias in high-redshift galaxy samples
link HERE


We show that gravitational lensing by foreground galaxies will lead to a higher number of galaxies to be counted at redshifts z>8-10. This number may be boosted significantly, by as much as an order of magnitude. If there existed only three galaxies above the detection threshold at redshifts z>10 in the Hubble field-of-view without the presence of lensing, the bias from gravitational lensing may make as many as 10-30 of them visible in the Hubble images. In this sense, the very distant universe is like a house of mirrors that you visit at the State Fair — there may be fewer direct lines-of-sight to a very distant object, and their images may reach us more often via a gravitationally-bent path. What you see is not what you’ve got!”




from thread linked above

another thread of mine a universe full of Bubble shaped lenses (theory),
link HERE


i would like to propose a thought experiment
there are gravitational lenses "Einsteins" lenses caused from mass warping space time and forming a lense or area where the density and reflective index cause light to bend around an object of great mass.
i have proposed suns have a heliospherical lense created by the layers and densities of medium between the various layers of heliosphere/helioshock and the heliopause and the heliosheith and the medium out side the bow shock.


when veiwing a sun inside a galaxy we can use the galaxy as a magnifying glass
(macrolensing) and the lensing of the sun as a secondary magnifying glass (micro lense) and image things in the distence.
this magnifycation property has been studied with interest and shows there is lenses within lenses.
the galaxy itself creates a lense with its shape a double Convex lens.



the model im using is plasma photon aceleration/deceleration with gravity/medium density as a "well " to overcome and be over come by at the destination. this means the property of the medium is defractive/reflective on an atomic scale and cumulative lense on a galactic scale gravity/micro lense in medium, which provides for
a telescoping effect

i have an idea about gravatational microscoping that might interest you
link HERE

it infers the same properties as a gravatational lense except the foci is the center of the lens itself

this thread is a bit "all over the place" but has some informative info from a sun gravity surface area/mass perspective

orbital relationship between mass and area of planets,
link HERE

this thread is an answer to the black body questions (sort of) lol
link HERE



Another Q (clue) is, Where is all the Dark Matter?
No need. As the observable universe just got smaller (and older). (((heel boy heel)))



take a look at these two lol
Epic Discovery: Our Colossal Universe -"250 Times Bigger than What We See"
link HERE

The universe just changed age and size
link HERE



Background Long-Wave Radiation?
= Tired Light from the Unobservable Universe. Obviously.
(uups, anti tired light ...... magnet just switch on, oh well)
How young is Humanity still nearly at the centre of the universe. (((the doG sits, pleadingly)))
As photon beams from a multitude of unobservable/distant and low radiation sources
and medium-near low-radio decaying source (I'm speculating there),
if they arrive to us 'on-blanket', what discernable difference.



if light has a maxiumum travel distence we could expect to see what we find


Time dilation and curved space, even 17yrs ago,
never appeared anything more than mathematical
symptoms of normal gravity from Special Relativity.



i would like to differentiate the new news on gravity lenses
the findings are in the universe is full of lens shaped bubbles at the end
it looks like galaxies can act as magnifying lenses in an optical sense because of shape and refractive index
as well as gravatational lensing factoring the effects together the out come is much brighter and luminous stars that are in the wrong places lol





I get your thought though.
What’s the difference between particulate reflection and diffraction?
Is it the atomic-coronal diffraction or airborne luminous reflection?
That fact that the solid object colours we see are the objects non-absorption spectra,
leaving the object with all the other colours except that that we see
has only just confused me now. Is that right.



i have a strange way of describing the whole mess of wave-particle duality
and would only confuse us both lol

if your still reading at this point please critique my work and enjoy

xploder
edit on 2-3-2011 by XPLodER because: fix brackets



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Gigantic gravity 'Lenses' magnify galaxies far, far away
link to source HERE

explains the new way to find galaxy lenses
looking for infra red and sub mm red signatures imediatly around lenses allows for easy detection with


Using data collected by the Herschel Astrophysical Terahertz Large Area Survey (Herschel‑ATLAS) the team of researchers have demonstrated a way to quickly and easily find strong gravitational lensing events with close to 100 percent efficiency.

Herschel is a European Space Agency (ESA) mission with significant participation from NASA. It was launched in May of 2009, and now orbits a distant point about 1.5 million kilometers (930,000 miles) from Earth on the opposite side of our planet from the sun.




Although the background galaxy behind a gravitational lens often can't be seen by visible light telescopes, these ancient objects still glow with radiant energy in what's called the submillimeter range-wavelengths of light from about 0.3 millimeters to 1 millimeter. The Herschel observatory was specifically designed to detect energy at submillimeter wavelengths, between the microwave and far-infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.



same source

it makes for an interesting time in cosmology

xploder



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Haven't read your links yet but came across this a couple of days ago.

en.wikipedia.org...


'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Large_Millimeter_Array'

Good old wikiP.

As an aside, their logo repressents the Crux constilation,
where at mid tropic latitudes the in mid-winter
Sun God Sets for 3 days, then rises again to
start the new solar year. Maybe sounds familiar.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Hi Exploder

Ok. Much brighter.
This I would expect from a gravitationally 'raised' line-of-sight.
Avoiding plasma mediums and solid matter within galaxy disks.
Until I've found a copy of the Greater Galaxy Count at z>8-10 RedShift paper and read it,
the reviews and comments so far lead me to understand that the Count is magnified,
rather than the arc-apperture field of view taken up by those galaxies.
And more luminous for the reasons above.

The Anomolous Black-Body example was not a question but a statement

The focal point of the gravitational lensing is plana convex, not perpendicular convex,
as the lensing effect is at the optimal gravitational/photon orbit for line-of-sight.

The postulation I'm proposing is that as the escaping light is
gravitationally drawn back to a line-of-sight hyperbolic trajectory, (which is perported from the recent paper)
which rotates the angle of trajectory, which requires an energy loss.
No standard conservancy equations appear to account for the line of trajectory rotation.
Astro-Dynamics for sling-'shoot' and steady orbits take account of Opposing-Side Differential,
but not the energy to initiate rotation, as the two body problem is arrive to
from an already revoloving dynamic.

The atomic (micro) and gravitational (cosomological) lensing has the effect of slowing light frequency.
That has the effect of replacing big bang RedShift with a proportion of lensing RedShift,
which trunkates the light source differantial assumptions.
Making the observable universe smaller.
And nuetering some of the (existential) expanding universe RedShift.

I think we're all on the same page there.

There are some details and final equations to be ironed out and formulated,
but everything in time.

I'll come back to these threads when I've had a chance to read the above paper.

Iain



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by verdanarch
 


i have found the bit you want to read

This is a color composite image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Green circles mark the locations of candidate galaxies at a redshift of z~8, while higher-redshift candidates are circled in red. The estimated distances to these candidates have not been confirmed spectroscopically. About 20 to 30 percent of these high-z galaxy candidates are very close to foreground galaxies, which is consistent with the prediction that a significant fraction of galaxies at very high redshifts are gravitationally lensed by individual foreground galaxies. This will help as a guide for future observations planned for the James Webb Space Telescope when it is launched. Credit: NASA/ESA/S. Wyithe (University of Melbourne), H. Yan (Ohio State University), R. Windhorst (Arizona State University), and S. Mao (Jodrell Bank Center for Astrophysics, and National Astronomical Observatories of China)


source HERE


The observed number counts of high-redshift galaxy candidates1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 have been used to build up a statistical description of star-forming activity at redshift z ≳ 7, when galaxies reionized the Universe1, 2, 9, 10. Standard models11 predict that a high incidence of gravitational lensing will probably distort measurements of flux and number of these earliest galaxies. The raw probability of this happening has been estimated to be ~0.5 per cent (refs 11, 12), but can be larger owing to observational biases. Here we report that gravitational lensing is likely to dominate the observed properties of galaxies with redshifts of z ≳ 12, when the instrumental limiting magnitude is expected to be brighter than the characteristic magnitude of the galaxy sample. The number counts could be modified by an order of magnitude, with most galaxies being part of multiply imaged systems, located less than 1 arcsec from brighter foreground galaxies at z ≈ 2. This lens-induced association of high-redshift and foreground galaxies has perhaps already been observed among a sample of galaxy candidates identified at z ≈ 10.6. Future surveys will need to be designed to account for a significant gravitational lensing bias in high-redshift galaxy samples.



nature source HERE

hope this helps

xploder



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
no source found

Gravitational lensing distorts post-dark age Universe
A measure of the star-forming activity that took place during the epoch of reionization — when the Universe was emerging from a dark age and neutral hydrogen was being reionized — can be obtained from the number counts of high-redshift galaxy candidates at redshifts z >~7. Gravitational lensing by galaxies between these distant objects and us can complicate matters, however. A new theoretical modelling study suggests that gravitational lensing is likely to dominate the observed properties of galaxies with redshifts of z >~12, where the instrumental limiting magnitude is expected to be brighter than the characteristic magnitude of the galaxy sample. This factor could alter number counts by an order of magnitude. Future surveys will therefore need to account for a significant gravitational lensing bias in high-redshift galaxy samples.


found source
link HERE

xploder



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by verdanarch
 



As an aside, their logo repressents the Crux constilation,
where at mid tropic latitudes the in mid-winter
Sun God Sets for 3 days, then rises again to
start the new solar year. Maybe sounds familiar.


it does sound very familiar
maby time to plant crops?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
If sky is blue when over head but...
There's an astrophysicist i think that has been around for decades that believes the galaxies are much closer than we're predicting. I don't remember his name. Since he's so alone in this view I suspect he's totally wrong, but it's worth nothing here since it's relevant.

The reason we need dark matter/energy is because there's not enough observable matter to hold the galaxies together or explain their structure. My guess is that if they were closer than currently accepted that it would help to explain why they hold together. But the structure? No idea. And how would this explain how objects that're far away rotate at a similar speed as objects that're closer?

I think that it's virtually impossibley for us to be wrong about distance, though. We've had so long to prove it inaccurate and so I highly doubt that galaxies are closer than currently believed.
edit on 2-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
here is a very interesting paper
arxiv.org...
Gravitational Lensing in Spherically Symmetric
Spacetimes

well worth a read

xploder

found another interestin paper
Gravitational Lensing and Dark
Matter in the Galactic Halo

source HERE


Gravitational lensing is the process that causes the appearance of distant bright objects
to be altered by the gravity of foreground mass. Being a purely gravitational e ect
makes lensing astrophysically important as a probe of mass, including dark matter as
well as visible matter.
Examples of gravitational lensing that have been observed include
 microlensing by stars, brown dwarfs etc. in the Galactic halo;
 de
ection of light and radio waves by the Sun;
 lensing by distant galaxies; and
 lensing by galaxy clusters.
We shall begin this Chapter with a detailed review of gravitational lensing. The
purpose of this is to explain the background to gravitational lensing before using
these principles to understand how the light of distant stars can be lensed by objects
within our Galaxy. It is the sections on microlensing in the Milky Way that are really
syllabus material. The rest you should consider as relevant background material, plus
information of general interest.



edit on 2-3-2011 by XPLodER because: add more info



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 



There's an astrophysicist i think that has been around for decades that believes the galaxies are much closer than we're predicting. I don't remember his name. Since he's so alone in this view I suspect he's totally wrong, but it's worth nothing here since it's relevant.


well im glad some one else shares my veiws lol
its important (i think) to challenge ideas that are ingrained not explained
when one person says hey here is an alternative explination
most ingrained people will respond from "the accepted" point of veiw
i am prepaired to defend my position but can accept proof either way
the strongest point i can make is hubble and co were unaware of structures in the universe
like the heliosphere and the galaxy sphere dark matter ect.
infact if hubble had carry out the same reasurch on quasars he would have come to a different conclusion

with the recent news that gravatational lenses may be alot more prevelent than was expected
we could asume that some red shift was lensing red shift instead of velocity red shift

most of what we can see is in "the shadow" of foreground galaxies and if foreground galaxies are lensing backround objects how can we asume cosmological or resesional red shift is not just simply an affect of lensing?

xploder



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join