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.

 

Is our galaxy or star at the center of the universe?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
We don't even know the boundry of the universe so we have no idea of the location of our galaxy and where its at in the universe.


Well done! So true. I wish people would open up their minds a bit more.




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
so how do we explain the areas between the "rings" and why would the universe order galaxies "around" us as if we were the center of everything

the idea we were the center of the solar system took a while to get rid of
how long are we going to asume we are the center of the universe?
If you are really serious about learning about the quantized redshift topic, there are 5 very informative pages of debate here:
www.physicsforums.com...

I just finished reading all 5 pages and I learned a lot. In summary, the one published paper about the 72-73 km/s was later refuted as incorrect, and a second paper citing that was never published and has problems.

Numerous other papers citing various periodicity are inconsistent and don't agree with each other so there's no consistent model, observation, or result that's been confirmed. In contrast, one of the papers mentioned in the discussion seems to support the BAO or Baryon Acoustic Oscillation theory mentioned here: t8web.lanl.gov...

The other part of your question is about us being at the center of the universe. We haven't assumed that since the Copernican principle: there is nothing special about our position in the universe. But it's a common question, and the way cosmology professors like to explain it, is assume you're on a raisin inside a loaf of raisin bread that's expanding from the yeast. You can be on any raisin and the other raisins will all look like they are moving away from you. So this type of observation doesn't require any raisin to be at the center.

www.loc.gov...

One famous analogy to explain the expanding universe is imagining the universe like a loaf of raisin bread dough. As the bread rises and expands, the raisins move farther away from each other, but they are still stuck in the dough. In the case of the universe, there may be raisins out there that we can’t see any more because they have moved away so fast that their light has never reached Earth.


There is an interesting paper that says the dark matter mystery would be solved if we ARE at the center of the universe:
content.usatoday.com...

Mathematicians have come up with an answer Monday for the mystery of "dark energy" tearing the universe apart at an accelerating rate...

The only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be "literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual," says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe. "I think this is plausible mathematics, but it doesn't seem physically relevant."
So an interesting theory would solve the dark energy problem, but it has actually been rejected because of our belief we are NOT at the center of the universe.

Therefore I'm not sure why you'd ask "how long are we going to asume we are the center of the universe?", it's because we reject that notion that we've rejected the proposed solution to the dark energy problem. (of course, there's a slim chance that could be a mistake? But I doubt it.).







edit on 3-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


i would like to thank you for the answer on a plate
if the quantized red shift question has been answered
i will continue will the same line of questioning without refering to red shift as being quantized
but

if galaxies have recently been show to demonstrate the "strong gravatational lensing" without the need for a cluster to provide enough mass to provide for the lense
then it follows that our galaxy is a lense as well
we are looking at the universe from the inside of a micro lense (heliosphere) helo density/helio gravity in a lense of different refractive indexes with the main gravity lense (galaxy "strong" lense) macro lense and out side the galaxy is a different medium density
so the minor lense (helio density/gravity) is affected by the (galaxy density/gravity) and when veiwed concurrently the system creates a lense within a lense
the minor effect of the micro and the major effect of the macro is that the two lenses "factor" together into a medium density/gravity lesing effect.

until recently we were unaware that galaxy sized lenses could provide for strong lensing effects
and this has not been taken into account when we analize light from distent sources.

what this means is
we are looking through a lense at our galaxy
we are looking through two lenses when we look at other galaxies in our "cluster"
we are looking through three lenses when we look at galaxies out of our cluster

in each case the heliosphere combines with one or more medium density/refractive index lenses with gravity on helio and galaxy scales
this is how gravatational lensing works
each small density change at a boundry is another lense

this means every thing we can see is "lensed" to some degree as long as it is outside the heliosphere

so if all light out side our heliosphere is lensed
is red shift an artifact of this lense function?
remember that hubble and others did not know about the heliospherical boundrys
or the galaxy scale strong lensing (yes einstein had postulated its existence)
but it was thought to only occour rarely

in this case we can say it happens to everything outside our lesnse coming in

what do you think?

xploder



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
i would like to thank you for the answer on a plate
you're welcome

we are looking through a lense at our galaxy
We are actually INSIDE the lens of our galaxy.


we are looking through two lenses when we look at other galaxies in our "cluster"
We are inside the lens of our galaxy, so that's one. What's the second one? The other galaxy is only a lens for looking at a more distant object, it's not really much of a lens when we look directly at it. It's kind of looking at the peephole in a hotel room door from across the room, you can see there's a lens there, but you're not really looking through it, right? Looking at a nearby galaxy is the same way.

You actually have to look at a distant object past the nearby galaxy to have that galaxy act as a lens, then it can magnify or distort the more distant object. But essentially that's really one lens: the distant galaxy. The lens we are inside of (the milky way) may have a small effect, but it's not particularly focused, unless we could look past our galactic core, the densest part of our galaxy, then we might see some lensing, but that region is so dense it's hard to see past it.


we are looking through three lenses when we look at galaxies out of our cluster
The magnification effect can be calculated mathematically depending on mass distribution. This is a bit of an oversimplification.


is red shift an artifact of this lense function?
what do you think?
Yes and no.

The yes is a qualified relationship discussed partially in this paper:

A distortion of very-high-redshift galaxy number counts by gravitational lensing


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.
First, note the probability of this happening is only half of one percent, and even then it only applies to very distant objects with a very high redshift. It also doesn't mean the redshift is incorrect, it means that the number of them we observe may be affected by gravitational lensing.

So when you add all that up, the answer is really, no.

The main reason the net effect on redshift is zero is, as the light approaches the mass, it's blueshifted, then as the light leaves the mass, it's redshifted again. So the net effect is zero for a distant object we view through a gravitational lens. It's discussed a little bit here: curious.astro.cornell.edu...

The effect of our own galaxy, since we are inside it, would actually result in a slight blue shift. Since almost everything we see is red-shifted, as you can guess, this blue-shift effect is negligible.

See this video which explains how light leaving a gravitational field is red-shifted.

(click to open player in new window)

The exact opposite happens to light entering a gravitational field (like our milky way galaxy), it's blue shifted.

The way the optics work out with our own galaxy, and our own sun, obviously the effect of this blueshift is completely overshadowed by the recessional velocity redshifts since we see mostly redshifts. There is a gravitational blueshift from nearby masses for the reason explained in that video, but the effect is small.
edit on 3-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


im glad we agree we are inside a lense
i asert we are in two when looking outside the galaxy

What have we learned about Gravitational Lensing Bias?




link HERE


ADAPTIVE OPTICS OBSERVATIONS OF B0128+437: A LOW-MASS, HIGH-REDSHIFT GRAVITATIONAL
LENS
David J. Lagattuta1, Matthew W. Auger2, and Christopher D. Fassnacht1
Received 2009 December 11; accepted 2010 May 19
ABSTRACT


We use high-resolution adaptive optics (AO) imaging on the Keck II telescope to study the grav-
itational lens B0128+437 in unprecedented detail, allowing us to resolve individual lensed quasar
components and, for the first time, detect and measure properties of the lensing galaxy. B0128+437 is
a small separation lens with known flux-ratio and astrometric anomalies. We discuss possible causes
for these anomalies, including the presence of substructure in the lensing galaxy, propagation effects
due to dust and a turbulent interstellar medium, and gravitational microlensing. This work demon-
strates that AO will be an essential tool for studying the many new small-separation lenses expected
from future surveys.
Subject headings: galaxies: high-redshift — galaxies:


link HERE

if we can see the effect of microlensing inside the macro lense (galaxy)
then we should expect to encounter the same effect but from inside the micro lense looking throught the macro lense (as a lense set) at a seperate lense set and depending on the focal distence of the host galaxy lens set will depend on the focal distence we could see other lenses at.
are most of these lenses at a common distence that interacts focally at the right range for our host lenset to have a telescoping effect?
if our focal range was different
would we the be able to engage focally, macro lenses at different distences to our position?
the two lenses (ours and the one we are observing) only interact if the focus is from lense to lense
making any other lenses between us and the ones we can see undetectable and any further out from the focal range undetectable.

so if we could adjust our lenset like a prescription lense to change focal depth would other lenses come into focus that we could exploit?

xploder
edit on 3-3-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
So basically mother earth is now a getting bigger around the middle,, AND needs glasses???



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


i would like to explore the blue shift then red shift transition theory in a gravity lense
i beleive the optical effect of the shape of an eliptical galaxy has a medium density effect on light as it travels through the lensing galaxy and gravity doesnt account for the refractive index and shape of the medium being traveled through. IMHO the three effects gravity, medium density and shape contribute to the outcome to the transition.
so if we used medium density/refractive index there would be an optical effect
if we use shape there would be a lensing effect
and gravity would still act on the light as it first travelled toward then away from the mass
the lense would have three cumulitive effects
and to expect a lense to transition first to blue then to red in equal or near equal amounts as the light transitions throught the lensets and are focused and refracted as if by majic into the exact same state on the other side of the transition sounds like majic

conservation of energy laws must be Satisfied to acount for the lense effect
conservation of energy laws must be Satisfied to account for the gravatational effect
conservation of energy laws must be Satisfied to account for the medium density

light cannot transition through a differing medium density and not account for the density or the lense wouldnt work as a lense.




xploder



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





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.


from your exterior source

from mine


What have we learned about Gravitational Lensing Bias?
(1) The very distant Universe is throwing us some enormous curve-balls
here: 20–40% of z≃8–10 candidates lensed by foreground galaxies?
• Hubble doesn’t have the capability to properly field all of these: Need
spectroscopic confirmation, but beyond capability of Hubble or ground.
(2) The very distant Universe acts like a cosmic “House of Mirrors”:
• There may be fewer direct lines-of-sight to a very distant object.
• Their images may reach us often via a gravitationally-bent light path.
• What you see is NOT what you’ve really got!




Lensing bias may occur for >
∼50% of the objects at z>
∼12.


link HERE


so the lensing is alot more common than we thought

xploder



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Thanks- Pink Floyd,, they weren't big for nothing,, THE PRISM AFFECT,,, duh!!! now just triagulate the 3 outside masses, that are affecting, our previous view of things.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   


i would go as far as to say the sub milimeter emitions detected are a micro (scale size) lense to the cluster lensing going on and the submillimeter or infra red emitions are a signature of lenses inside a lense

so the cluster as a group is a lense
the galaxies in the cluster are lenses and the heliospheres in the galaxies are lenses

there is a cost of transition through the lenses at the transition boundry at the boundry layer if lower wavelength light does not have enough energy to cross the lense surface, it is reflected
this is the source of the sub millimeter emittion as much as, the waves that only just had enough energy to transition into the new medium when exiting the other side are shifted down in length and amplitude and the less energetic waves cannot travel very far before losing energy. effectivly taxing energy from the light for each transtion into a new medium.

in this way there is an unproportianal shift at both lenses surfaces

so if we find bright sources of sub milimeter light are lenses and there is no local source of light in that range we can asume that the source of the sub millimeter light is either a sun or a lense

xploder

xploder



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome
So basically mother earth is now a getting bigger around the middle,, AND needs glasses???


a good anology
would be
if we had a "optically corrective lense" like glasses outside our galaxy lense
we could change the focal distence (like being long sighted)
and be able to see other "lenses" think magnifying glass because they were now in focus
then when we focus on the manifyed image we would be able to see whats behind it

at the moment i would say
we are looking through binoculars bacwards
at a pair of binoculars that is facing us with the big lense in our direction
with a candle at the other end

everything looks far away and smaller than real
the light from the candle is larger and brighter than real
and it would be very hard to judge distence from luminosity of the candle

flip the binoculars closest to you and everything is closer in the foreground but the image on the lense of the second pair of binoculars is less luminous and smaller.

what this means is depending on how strong the lenses are in the binoculars will depend on the scale and luminosity of the objects and the perceived distence between them.

xploder



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
possable distence/focal corrilation to sub millimeter sources
if the galaxy lense we were in had a focal distence then sources at that range would show
the signature of infra red and sub millimeter emitions from the lense source that interacted with the distence focal range.




link HERE

so if all the "lenses" are at similar distences
and all the "dusty star forming" galaxies are at the same distences
could this be the distence to gain focal depth with the lenses and interact with them?

xploder



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
so if we could adjust our lenset like a prescription lense to change focal depth would other lenses come into focus that we could exploit?


so if all the "lenses" are at similar distences
and all the "dusty star forming" galaxies are at the same distences
could this be the distence to gain focal depth with the lenses and interact with them?

If we were omnipotent and could move galaxies and black holes around as we wish we could construct any kind of lens we want.

But given we aren't omnipotent I have no idea how we would do that without moving galaxies around.


conservation of energy laws must be Satisfied to acount for the lense effect
conservation of energy laws must be Satisfied to account for the gravatational effect
conservation of energy laws must be Satisfied to account for the medium density
I'm not sure why you list these three things, it's really three different aspects or effects from the same thing:

-mass distribution in space.

Once you plot the mass distribution in space you have the density variations and gradients, the gravitational effects and related lensing. A century ago the calculations would have been nightmarish, but with supercomputers we can model the density/mass distribution (which we do partly from the lensing effects we observe), there's a TED presentation by George Smoot about how this was done (It took a lot of computing power):
www.ted.com...
That's one of my favorite presentations, it's an incredible computer model of the universe.


so the lensing is alot more common than we thought

Yes, good find. One source said 0.5% probability but it can be greater, the other source says it can be up to 20-40% of z=8-10 candidates, or ~50% of z=-12 which is definitely a LOT more than 0.5%

But from one point of view you could claim that since we are inside the gravitational lens of the milky way galaxy, the number of observations affected by lensing is actually 100%. Then you get into a discussion about how significant the effects are. Perhaps it is in that discussion that a resolution of the large discrepancy between 0.5% and 50% can be found. Perhaps the number really is closer to 50% for z=-12 candidates, but for many of those, the lensing effects are negligible, but still present. It's pretty amazing we can see ANYTHING with z=-12, without lensing, we probably couldn't, so I actually would have guessed higher than 50% of observations with z values that high involved some lensing. But did you notice they didn't claim the lensing affects the redshift value itself? (just the flux and number of such high z value objects observed).



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by warbird03

Originally posted by BobAthome
yes


Way to contribute to the discussion!


I tried too warn you
lol



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



If we were omnipotent and could move galaxies and black holes around as we wish we could construct any kind of lens we want.

But given we aren't omnipotent I have no idea how we would do that without moving galaxies around.



the point i was trying to make was using sub mm infra red light as a sign of gravatational lensing has recently proven to be the easyest way to locate lenses

so if we found a large group of sources of sub mm light and infra red light at a constrained distence range
we could asume that the sources are acually lenses
and if constrained to concentric rings of z=1.5-2.5
we could asume focal depth is constrained between these values
ie
if ultra luminous irfra red galaxies (ULIRGs) are constrained between two values this may show a focal interaction between our lense and the lenses detected emitting sub mm or ir light at that distence.
if the numbers of ULIRGs climbed steeply and declinded steeply around the constraint values this could be an indication of focal parity with lenses at those distences.
this gives a direct corrolation between focal interaction and distence with red shift.


I'm not sure why you list these three things, it's really three different aspects or effects from the same thing:

-mass distribution in space.



its not just gravity creating the lensing effect
there are three factors involved


That's one of my favorite presentations, it's an incredible computer model of the universe.



thanks for that link


i asert that if most sources of sub mm infra red light at a red shift of z=1.5-2.5
are lenses made visable because of focal interaction at distence with our helio/galaxy lense

if our lens focus (helio/galaxy) was closer to us the ULIRGs would be observed at z=1.0-2.0 range
if our lens focus (helio/galaxy) was further away to us the ULIRGs would be observed at z=2.5-4.0

i asert a direct corolation between the distence of ULIRGs and the focal depth of our local lens set

herschel provides gravatational lens bonanza


The reason is that, although galaxies lack strong emission in this regime in the modern universe, ancient galaxies gave off far more since during the first 4 billion years. During that time, many galaxies were dominated by dust being warmed by star formation. Yet due to their distance, they too should be faint… Unless a gravitational lens gets in the way. Thus, the majority of small, point-like sources in the ALTAS collection are likely to be lensed galaxies. As Dr Mattia Negrello, of the Open University and lead researcher of the study explains, “The big breakthrough is that we have discovered that many of the brightest sources are being magnified by lenses, which means that we no longer have to rely on the rather inefficient methods of finding lenses which are used at visible and radio wavelengths.”




PASADENA, Calif. -- It turns out the Herschel Space Observatory has a trick up its sleeve. The telescope, a European Space Agency mission with important NASA contributions, has proven to be excellent at finding magnified, faraway galaxies. Like little kids probing patches of dirt for insects, astronomers can use these new cosmic magnifying lenses to study galaxies that are hidden in dust.

"I was surprised to learn that Herschel is so good at finding these cosmic lenses," said Asantha Cooray of the University of California, Irvine. "Locating new lenses is an arduous task that involves slogging through tons of data. With Herschel, we can find a lot of them much more efficiently." Cooray is a co-author of a paper about the discovery, appearing in the Nov. 5 issue of the journal Science. The lead author is Mattia Negrello of the Open University in the United Kingdom.

A cosmic magnifying lens occurs when a massive galaxy or cluster of galaxies


NASA link HERE

i beleive all lenses would give off these sub mm and ir light and the light would be detectable imediatly outside of the lense
problem is our helio/galaxy lens is only interacting with lenses at z=1.5-2.5 and allowing for the ULIRGs to be visable to our observence.at that range.

im not saying that we cant find lenses outside of those ranges
but that if a much larger sample was between these ranges than any where else and all at the same basic distences applyed that would show a focal range allowing the ir sub mm sources to be seen.

xploder



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
correction to the red shift range previously quoted




galaxies
• (U)LIRGs from z=0.5 – 4



link HERE

xploder
edit on 4-3-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-3-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I would also just assume if everything is moving away from everything, then ANYWHERE you were in the universe it would appear as if everything was simply moving away from YOU.

Another issue I'm a little confused about is how you calculate speed on a universal scale.

Why I mean is, say galaxy A is moving away from the origin point at 3/4 the speed of light. Say galaxy B is also moving away from the origin point at 3/4 the speed of light in the opposite direction. While they may only be moving 3/4 the speed of light relative to the origin point, they would be traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light away from each other. If you didn't know where the origin point was, and just measured the speed with which two bodies were traveling away from each other, wouldn't that mean that something can travel faster than the speed of light, relative to another body?

This stuff is just to complicated I say, the speed in space issue I have never been close to understanding.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by James1982
While they may only be moving 3/4 the speed of light relative to the origin point, they would be traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light away from each other.
No they wouldn't because their clocks run at different rates than yours so the time has changed, and therefore their relative speed=distance per unit time, is no longer the same in their reference frame as it is in your reference frame.


If you didn't know where the origin point was, and just measured the speed with which two bodies were traveling away from each other, wouldn't that mean that something can travel faster than the speed of light, relative to another body?
No for the reason just mentioned.

However the most distant galaxies we can see are moving away from us at close to the speed of light, so there could be more distant galaxies we can't see that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. (Which of course means we won't be able to see them). This actually doesn't violate the laws of physics. Objects can't move THROUGH space faster than light, but the recessional speed of the distant galaxy results from the expansion of space itself and therefore it can move away from us faster than the speed of light without moving though space faster than the speed of light. It does get a little weird.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Especially when you include things like transrelativistic concepts.

This has been a great discussion that i have thoroughly enjoyed reading. I hope to see more. the lensing effect is something I brought up awhile back, and never really got any answers. Seems like if you just wait a little while, the internet never fails to deliver information.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by James1982
While they may only be moving 3/4 the speed of light relative to the origin point, they would be traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light away from each other.
No they wouldn't because their clocks run at different rates than yours so the time has changed, and therefore their relative speed=distance per unit time, is no longer the same in their reference frame as it is in your reference frame.


If you didn't know where the origin point was, and just measured the speed with which two bodies were traveling away from each other, wouldn't that mean that something can travel faster than the speed of light, relative to another body?
No for the reason just mentioned.

However the most distant galaxies we can see are moving away from us at close to the speed of light, so there could be more distant galaxies we can't see that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. (Which of course means we won't be able to see them). This actually doesn't violate the laws of physics. Objects can't move THROUGH space faster than light, but the recessional speed of the distant galaxy results from the expansion of space itself and therefore it can move away from us faster than the speed of light without moving though space faster than the speed of light. It does get a little weird.


Very interesting, thanks for the reply!

It does make more sense now, but the time issue would only reflect the speed that is measured from the two bodies right? What if you were an objective viewer, wouldn't it appear the speed they are moving away from each other would still be greater than the speed of light?

On the subject of time being relative to the speed that you are traveling (another issue that's very confusing to me, but since you answered my previous question so well I figured I'd ask about this too) say you were traveling 99% the speed of light in a circular path that was only, say, 1 mile in diameter. So your not actually moving through space much at all. Would you still notice the time slowing effects?

Like if you had 1 mile diameter circular train track, and somehow that train traveled around it at 99% the speed of light, would the train in effect be a time machine?

Thanks again!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join