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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


after reading all these posts about redshift and such,i have come to tell you that in an infinite universe we are indeed the center. it goes like this infinity-u-ytinifni . see if the universe is infinite then where ever you are you have infinity in infinite directions around you effectively making you/we/here the center.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:50 PM
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.



i would like to propose that our heliospherical lense proprties could be altered
if we were able to confine a gas (using magnetic containment) into a lense shape
we could vary the distence between us and our heliospherical boundry lense
we could change the shape and medium density of the gas
we could using the known gas properties and shape of lense alter the depth of focus onto the primary lense set
and create a "prescription" lense to allow us to abserve these lenses at different focal depths

if using this "corrective" lens shifts the Ultra Luminous Infra Red Galaxies we detect to another distence range
then we could calculate and use lenses at different distences from us

xploder



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 



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.



i would say an interesting thing to note is if a glaxay was traveling away from you at 1.5 times the speed of light and you could still see the light
relativists would say that the galaxy was traveling 90% lightspeed and the galaxy was expanding at 60% or that we were traveling relitive to that galaxy away from it at say 20% the the galaxy was traveling at say 70% and the universe was expanding at 60% ect

i dislike any explination that you have to be a genius to understand lol

so instead i would like to say circular reasoning and explinations are intended to always come to the same point confusion of the person investigating

if all objects were traveling away from us because of expansion ALL objects would be red shifted
so an object moving toward us at exactly the same rate that the universe is expanding is not shifted
and an object that is moving towards us faster than the expansion is blue shifted

expansion was introduced to explain very high red shift galaxies
THAT COULD NOT TRAVEL AT LIGHT SPEED

the important point here is everything is said to be travelling away from everything else
in the face of gravity this makes no sence
so dark energy is invented to explain why the galaxies are moving away
but this is only needed to explain the speed of recetion away from us

if light has no relitive proerties to us because of time dialation
why cant we have galaxies receading at faster than the speed of light with no COSMILOGICAL EXPANSION?
how can relativists state nothing can go faster than the speed of light relitive to our observence
and at the same time say the two galaies can (relitive) to one another move in opposite directions higher than the speed of light?

i would alter the argument to this

if we substituted expansion for a lensing property initially all can be explained logicall without the need for dark energy (the anti gravity of space)

blue shift is when the focal depth through the host galaxies lenset has ever decreasing medium density to travel through before reaching our galaxy (a shifting focal depth) through the galaxy medium
red shift is when the focal depth through the host galaxies lenseset has ever increasing medium density to travel through before reaching our galaxy (a shifting focal depth) through the galaxy medium

if light speed was constent adding or subtracting a few thousand km/h would not effect the speed of light as a constant and the doppler effect would not work as red shift
but lenses can effect the properties of light
and if light was transversing a lense and we effected the lense shape or density as the light transversed the lense we could get red and blue shift
ie an expanding lense would increase the amount of difference between blue and red shift velocities as stars rotated in the lense as the come towards and then away from our relitive position.




adding to light speed and subtracting from light speed shouldnt work for a constant but a lense changing focal depth could simply and without the need for dark matter achive the same results.

i propose that galaxies with an active galaxy nuclus would have an expanding lense and have higher red shift/blue shift values at the same rotational speeds than galaxies whos lense was shrinking
ie for identical galaxies
AGN = larger value redshift larger value blue shift (expanding lense)
no AGN = smaller value redshift smaller value blueshift (collapsing lense)

for a simple answer i propose a direct relation could be established between AGN lense expansion
and higher rotational redshift and higer blue shift values in galaxy rotations

im going to look for evedence of high red shift blue shift values in Active Galaxy Nucluses

xploder



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kon1foundas
 


Sorry for slightly off topic ( not totally ) post , i thought i would take a chance to post a link to my thread with the theory of how our universe began. A serious theory that makes a lot of sense.

Link - www.abovetopsecret.com...

And because of that im sorry but i would have to say no our sun is not the centre of the universe ( IMO )


Peace



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Too much gas in that post, you need some plasma!


iopscience.iop.org...



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


i am glad you added that a plasma lens would work just as well if not much better

for adjusting the focal depth into the local lenset
great addition to the discusion
star


xploder



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I figure that I am the center of the universe, because if I decide to take off and fly to the edge of the universe, it doesn't matter which direction I go, it's the same time/distance to the edge.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   


i theorize that the reason the velocities are measured to be too fast at the outter edge of galaxies is not because of their velocities (acual velocity) but because of a shifting of focal interaction created by a decreasing amount of medium density between the helio lense and galaxy lens of the galaxy under observence (blueshift)
the red shift can be explained in an inverse manner, if the amount of desity between the heliosphere and galaxy lenses of the galaxy under observation is increasing the shift is in the red direction (redshift)


example
two identical galaxies one with lense expansion one with lense deflation

if the galaxy lens itself is expanding the red shift value would be higer at its peak and the blue shift lower at its peak.

if the galaxy lens itself is deflating the red shift peak value would be less and the blueshift peak value would be higer

so in conclusion if we simulated red/blue shift as a function of a shifting lens focus caused by increasing or decreasing amounts of medium density to travel through (observer bias) and simulated the optical functional impact on combined lensets we could show that the "telescoping" effect of our galaxy interacting with the lens focal shifting density from the observed galaxy could account for the shift

its not the star in the galaxy thats moving too fast its the shifting property of that galaxies lense effect which amplifies the redshift and we are acually measuring the focal interaction shift
not the acual stars velocity

xploder



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982
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?
Yes it would appear that way to you but that's ok, neither object is moving away from you faster than the speed of light.


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?
When you go that fast, time seems to pass normally to you, so you wouldn't see anything in slow motion like some scientifically inaccurate sci-fi movies suggest. Actually the opposite would happen, outside your frame of reference. Let's look at a clock on the train, and another clock outside the train. If you're on the train, the clock on the train seems to run normally to you. But when you look at the clock outside the train, the minute hand may be moving like a second hand, it would appear to be running like time has sped up outside the train.

If you're outside the train, the clock outside the train seems to run normally, and the clock inside the train seems to run very slowly, so yes it's a time machine taking the traveler into the future from their perspective on the train.

We do this to particles at the LHC but they don't carry clocks with them. They do travel into the future though.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I posted a link to another thread on ats which had links about the particle accelerator and the creation of our universe if you are interested , but it alreadys sounds like you know what your talking about


Peace



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
the important point here is everything is said to be travelling away from everything else
in the face of gravity this makes no sence
so dark energy is invented to explain why the galaxies are moving away
but this is only needed to explain the speed of recetion away from us
No.

Remember when I said you take correct theories and misapply them? That's the case here. Dark energy is a valid "theory" or placeholder for a future scientific theory to be more accurate. One of the more popular views, is that Einstein's cosmological constant, what he called his "biggest blunder", could be dark energy. But let's look at some history of cosmology to see why dark energy was NOT invented to explain why galaxies are moving away, nor was it invented to explain the "speed" of recession.

Einstein thought the universe might be static (I may be oversimplifying here so bear in mind I'm taking some liberties with my paraphrasing). He thought in the face of gravity, and his theory of relativity, everything might be pulled together by gravity, but it obviously wasn't, so apparently he deduced that something must be offsetting gravity to keep things apart to make a static universe. (This was the better part of a century ago, and nobody ever heard of dark energy until about 1998.) Then Hubble announced the red shifts showing everything was moving apart, and the "big bang" theory was born, so THAT was the reason the galaxies were said to be moving away, not dark energy, which wouldn't be discovered until over 60 years later.

And that's what caused Einstein to drop his "cosmological constant" and call it a blunder (His version of "dark energy")

The big bang was thought to explain the speed of galaxy recession away from us just fine until 1998 (without any "dark energy"). Then in 1998, we discovered that the speed the other galaxies moved away was getting faster over time, so it was NOT the speed of the galaxies that dark energy needed to explain, it was the ACCELERATION. Speed and acceleration are related but the difference is important, so the distinction may seem subtle to a layman but it's profound to a physicist.

So as an ATS physicist is fond of saying, words have meanings. If you want to convey a clear and accurate message, you must choose your words carefully. In this case the difference between speed and acceleration of receding galaxies makes an over 6 decade difference in the history of cosmology.


if light has no relitive proerties to us because of time dialation
why cant we have galaxies receading at faster than the speed of light with no COSMILOGICAL EXPANSION?
how can relativists state nothing can go faster than the speed of light relitive to our observence
and at the same time say the two galaies can (relitive) to one another move in opposite directions higher than the speed of light?
Obviously the reason they are saying this is because they believe in cosmological expansion.


i would alter the argument to this

if we substituted expansion for a lensing property initially all can be explained logicall without the need for dark energy (the anti gravity of space)

blue shift is when the focal depth through the host galaxies lenset has ever decreasing medium density to travel through before reaching our galaxy (a shifting focal depth) through the galaxy medium
red shift is when the focal depth through the host galaxies lenseset has ever increasing medium density to travel through before reaching our galaxy (a shifting focal depth) through the galaxy medium
No.

I already explained this in a previous post. Before the light reaches our galaxy, everything the light passes through (or near) first blueshifts, then redshifts the light. The net effect is zero. Every galaxy, cloud of interstellar gas, black hole, etc does that. All the effects zero out, until it gets to the milky way. Then when the light enters the milky way there is a tiny blue shift because the light enters the milky way but we observe it before it leaves, so our galaxy is the only one where the red and blue shifts don't cancel each other out completely. When the light that enters the milky way finally leaves the milky way, the milky way's effect is cancelled out too, but we see it in the milky way before it has a chance to do that. But we do see some blueshift/redshift cancellation from the effects from individual stars in the milky way, it just isn't quite 100%.


i propose that galaxies with an active galaxy nuclus would have an expanding lense
what would make the lens expand in your proposal?

I would say that the lens may not be expanding in an AGN, at least not from our perspective, but it may be changing shape and causing microlensing effects. If the AGN is caused by a supermassive black hole accreting mass, that would explain the excess luminosity, but the mass it's accreting is probably already in the vicinity of the black hole. An analogy might be a bathtub full of water, and the drain of the bathtub is like the black hole sucking the matter in. We can see the excess luminosity from the matter getting sucked into the black hole just as we can see the little vortex forming around the bathtub drain. But all the water in the bathtub is essentially already there. If you have some rubber duckies swirling around the bathtub drain vortex (perhaps analogous to a large clump of mass, like a stellar cluster swirling around a supermassive black hole) you might see some variable microlensing effects from the passing rubber duckies or stellar clusters.

I found a couple of papers talking about microlensing effects related to AGNs, you may be interested in, though they are a little dated and I by no means did an exhaustive search. I may look more later but I'm out of time for now. Here are the papers I found:

A gravitational lens origin for AGN-variability? Consequences of micro-lensing

Gravitational lensing of active galactic nuclei



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
i believe the Universe is infinite, therefore everything is the center of the Universe... it would make sense since everything somewhat feels like the Universe revolves around them. think about it, right now your sitting at a computer while everything in the UNIVERSE is going on at once...ITS EFFIN MIND BLOWING! But whats also crazy is the Universe is really just one thing but yet a multitude of individuals...idk, science is crazy and will cause suicide/madness if one thinks about it to hard lol



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
the whole material Universe is merely sandwiched between the realms of heaven and hades

one's accomplishing Dream Yoga will bring you a satisfactory answer:

www.realitysandwich.com...


our 'location' is wrapped in the idea of quantum entanglement....non-locality
edit on 5-3-2011 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



what would make the lens expand in your proposal?


it would be the observerd size of the lens increasing in size (optical) by luminosity of the lens as a system, the whole lens lights up and illuminates gas just outside the lens. there would be a "flicker" acociated with the required angle of veiwing or angle of incedence. when the gravity lens effect is veiwed from the object we would normally lens, as our aligned angles passed a common axis.(cross paths) in equal amounts ("common"alignment) light source would create a "flash of brightness" into both sides of the lens causing illumination of the thermal boundary.
the reason i was looking at AGNs is i beleive the extra energy released would or could make the observation more spectacular. Ultra Luminous Infra Red Galaxies.

i amagine im not explaining it very well as i feel an anology coming on
so i will thank you for the reading
and the corrections

but do you have an opinion on the lense to lense corrolation and its observable effects?
sorry but i dont know a better word for it other than "flash" or "flicker" (crossing luminous object alignment)

its like haveing three lenses the outer two lenses focusing light into the middle lense and increase luminosity of the center lense and as an effect the gas is illuminated and the lense appairs to increase in size "flicker"


xploder



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
but do you have an opinion on the lense to lense corrolation and its observable effects?
sorry but i dont know a better word for it other than "flash" or "flicker" (crossing luminous object alignment
You're referring to the topic of those two papers I posted for you on microlensing effects of AGNs?

I only skimmed the papers and didn't immediately see anything that contradicted my "rubber duckie circling the bathtub drain vortex" analogy, but I have no idea if that guess is right or not since I only skimmed the papers I found. But that would be a form of microlensing that could certainly cause some flickering in the brightness of lensed objects.

I need to research those papers more and search for others to offer an educated opinion instead of a guess. I don't think the lens itself illuminates though, it just changes the brightness of or causes flickering in the lensed objects.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





this is the type of thing im looking for bright luminous glaxies that are lenses




this is the type of "flickering" im talking about




this is what i want to investigate

is there an interaction with a larger mecanism at play with luminous sources we dont understand and therfore explain as microlensing events?

are the galaxies only luminous because of lensing distence focal interaction?
can flickers from such a system be studied?
what information is avalable about the distence and mass of these luminous galaxies?

xploder



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   


xploder



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

However, even when an optically bright counterpart has been identified, there can
still be ambiguity about the precise source of the submm emission. I show in figure 5
an example of a well-studied submm source with two optically bright components,
reminiscent of the merging galaxies shown in figure 2. However, a high-resolution
study of this galaxy by Ivison et al . (2001) has shown that the submm emission from
this system (which pinpoints the location of the starburst) actually arises outside
of the optical extent of the galaxy, near the very red feature J1n (figure 5). Thus,
caution has to be exercised when trying to relate the ultraluminous activity detected
in the submillimetre to that seen in less obscured wavebands.


LINK TO PAPER

this is the sort of thing im looking for

xploder



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by warbird03
Something that extends infinitely in all directions can't have a center, can it? It could have an origin (which I think our solar system is far too young to be), but not a center. I would think with if the universe does extend infinitely in all directions, that would make it seem like you're at the center of the universe no matter where you're at.

However, I'm certainly no expert on the subject so I could be completely wrong.

Edit: BadBoYeed, we're in the spiral arm of our galaxy, the OP was about our galaxy or even our solar system being the center of the universe.
edit on 2-3-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)


Exactly, Infinity has no center, you can't take a measurement at all in it. There is no place you can put the dot, that could be measured in terms of, half way there, or 90%, because wherever you measure, it has an infinity behind, ahead, spiraling in all directions, without, and within, say a grain of sand, an atom, earth, a star, a UFO. There is no measurement and No Time, no size, its all at once, forever, though consciousness perceives sequencing.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by warbird03
Something that extends infinitely in all directions can't have a center, can it?

Exactly, Infinity has no center, you can't take a measurement at all in it.
Don't be so sure.

The surface of a sphere might appear to extend infinitely in all directions, at least from the perspective that you can travel along the surface in any direction, and never reach an "end" to the surface. But the sphere has a center (though the universe may not).

Some think the universe might be like that, it looks flat but that could just be because the curvature is so small and the universe could really be "spherical" (Michio Kaku has expressed this opinion).

Is the Universe Infinite?


The density of the universe also determines its geometry. If the density of the universe exceeds the critical density, then the geometry of space is closed and positively curved like the surface of a sphere. This implies that initially parallel photon paths converge slowly, eventually cross, and return back to their starting point (if the universe lasts long enough)...

We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.
So if it's a sphere it's a huge one because it's so close to flat we can't measure the curvature. But the Earth is much smaller and some people seem to think we had a hard time measuring the curvature of the Earth for a while and some people may have thought it was flat.

We will continue to make more and more precise measurements of the flatness of the universe. Eventually with enough accuracy, we may detect some small curvature and determine the universe geometry is really spherical as Michio Kaku suggests.
edit on 6-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: added image



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join