It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Stars Locations are Uncertain new break through throws curveball

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:21 AM
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

Very true, but, how many ATS skeptics do you think will still find a way to pad their own fragile realities while desperately trying to dictate and project those "weakened" realities on others? Its hilarious to watch as 2011 begins to blow away all of the excuses and lies that have been kept for centuries. Even better, its awesome to watch the disinformation boys dance all around trying to plug all the holes of streaming information at once. They're working overtime baby!!!

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:52 AM

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by XPLodER

Hrmmm this seems to be an article from 2004

quoting myself from this thread

Originally posted by cabuki
wow. S&F for you. That is pretty nuts!

recent discoveries with gravatational lensing now is confirmed with a high percentage of "distent" objects up to 50 % of very high red shifts are gravatationally lensed.
combine the results

the lead scientist on the gravity lensing study said

its like looking though a house of mirrors,

if density medium/reflective index and special relitivity combine natually
then our telescopes could be fooling us into seeing things
in the wrong place
at the wrong scale
moving in the wrong direction
not visable at all
reflected all over the observable universe
refracted into different wave lenghts

makes me wounder if the universe is really expanding?

some of the recent gravity lensing survey estimites some pretty high numbers

so when the two effects
density/reflective index

are present we veiw objects that make no sense
with the number of possable gravatational lenses now many times previous estimites
the line of sight
what you are looking at is not what you acually have

edit on 10-3-2011 by XPLodER because: imag not isable

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:52 AM
yep, there is something fishy about red shift = speed & distance

but who am I to question the all mighty Big Bang Theory...

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:59 AM
Wow, I never thought of the universe or stars like that. So we not only see the star, we see where it has been in any given point in time and space?

So Point A, where the star began, and Point B where we see it millions of years later, forms a "path," which represents every frame in time. One could wonder if they could "see" as infinity, if the "path" would resemble a "string" of sorts? Isn't it amazing how everything is a point, which contains everything, and with every increase in scale, becomes a point which contains everything. That would seem to answer which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken, because it had everything needed to make an egg.

I suppose this is much like moving-up or down a density or dimension. Now I wonder if visualizing a higher dimension actually moves the intellect into a higher dimension?

IF you tell me now that the "path" from point A to B makes a "cork-screw" pattern as it travels, then would it not resemble the movement of a photon of light?
edit on 10-3-2011 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:45 AM
from what ive read so far, it seems like maybe 1 or 2 if you know what gravitational lenses are.

its not light passing through gas or any type of debris.

your not looking through a cloud, think of it as if you are looking through a glass globe or ball. what happens if you hold that ball up to the light? it warps and the lightbulb wont look like its in the same spot as it actually is. through the globe it will appear to be a different spot.

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:58 AM
reply to post by XPLodER

Actually the way I understood that article, it was not suggesting that the Stars could possibly be closer than we perceive them....simply that they could be in different locations, which is a very different thing. Things like gravity warping the light, and the star having moved since the light had reached us, would simply cause it to be horizontally or vertically displaced, not closer or farther from us.[unless of course in the case of the star having moved, it could of course have moved closer to us conceivably....though this would be of little consequence since unless it was moving incredibly fast towards us, it would not have moved hardly at all, from our vantage point....not to mention, that stars do not generally go racing across the universe in such a way...] Now the negative refraction index is a bit more exotic (in fact its so exotic I have a difficult time believing that it could possibly apply to start, but for the moment I'll accept what the article claims) and its effects are exotic too....but none of the effects as far as I can tell such as rays being refracted on the same side of rather than through, or Cherenkov radiation pointing the wrong way would cause a star to seem closer than it was. Even a reversed Doppler effect (which is predicted result) would not make a star seem closer.....just that it was moving closer, relatively to us....something which (to my knowledge) has never been observed, since it is known that the Universe is expanding. Of course if ALL of the stars were experiencing negative refraction, then it could be theorized that the Universe is collapsing rather than expanding, but I seriously doubt any scientist would suggest that such an exotic and rare phenomenon as negative refraction would be the norm (and this article certainly does not suggest this). Either way, none of this would have stars actually be physically closer than they appear. Now on the other hand a star could conceivably be completely invisible by negative refraction.I don't know if the conditions suggested for negative refraction to take place would allow a close star to be invisible.....but its a possibility.
edit on 10-3-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: I added a sentence for clarification.

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:27 AM
I Tell ya, all that mumbo jumbo them modern star wizards are telling us and we write our fingers dull and talk our mouths fuzzy about, will sonn turn out to be completely false. So I stick to the thought, that the whole thing is much to great and majestic for us to snoop around in and come to valid conclusions. So its best to leave it up to the forces that made it and maintains it and have faith in them that they wont make a major mistake that would make it vanish. There was a time when we had trust and faith in it all. Where did it go? How come we suddenly need some highly paid star wizards to explain it all to us...?

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:22 AM

Originally posted by XPLodER

The researchers looked at transmission through space, where high velocities are common.

"First I did the derivations with the observer moving and the energy source stationary," says Lakhtakia. " Then Mackay did the derivations with the observer stationary and the light source moving."

i can now confirm that this does apply to inter stella and inter galactic scales
this could change alot of sciences


What about INTRA galactic scales, within our own galaxy? If it's in effect there, then the redshift mechanics of it might have implications for some or all of the extrasolar planets found to date, since most of them are only known from cyclic shifts in the spectral analyses, not direct observations. The "mirrors" or "lenses" that the light passes through, if they have some sort of cyclical changes, could affect the light to show planets where there are none, and vice versa.

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by trekwebmaster

what should really trip you out:

if you look at a nebula (unformed galaxy, i think), if you travel towards it at the speed of light, you will see it form into a galaxy infront of your eyes. like watching it on fast forward.

it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach earth. so when you look up in the sky, you dont see the sun, you see what the sun looked like, 8 minutes ago.

so if you look at something even further, say 40 million light years away, you are seeing what it looked like, 40 million years ago.

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Illustronic
C is constant, no matter how fast you are going or what you are looking through. Part of the physical nature of matter.

I pose–flaw of mathematical hypotheses by the author, or a flagrant disingenuous twist of data analysis.

My whistle blows woo.

C is a constant IN VACUO. Materials light pass through will affect its speed to a degree. Materials you see it through will APPEAR to effect it as well. When light goes through a lens, the path it takes is changed. While C as a constant remains the same in that context, the travel time will change because the path changes.

So yeah, it matters more what you are looking at it through than C itself matters.

edit on 2011/3/10 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:38 AM

Originally posted by
reply to post by trekwebmaster

what should really trip you out:

if you look at a nebula (unformed galaxy, i think), if you travel towards it at the speed of light, you will see it form into a galaxy infront of your eyes. like watching it on fast forward.

it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach earth. so when you look up in the sky, you dont see the sun, you see what the sun looked like, 8 minutes ago.

so if you look at something even further, say 40 million light years away, you are seeing what it looked like, 40 million years ago.

Which means of we had a really BIG telescope we could see somebody who has died 10.000 years ago on a far away planet, alive

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:26 PM
Do they also consider the fact that our placement in the galaxy is also not constant... We are moving as well, in a speed, direction, and trajectory that I do not think we even know exactly. So all perceptions of distance and view of other celestial bodies are also relative to that respect.

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by donhuangenaro

here it is

Google Video Link

edit on 10-3-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)
extra DIV

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by

Aye, kinda like the path a photon takes when it is emitted as light from a star? A photon, million of years past, arrives on Earth. It takes millions of years for it to navigate through the convection flows of the sun, even if it escapes?

The speed of C is constant when in a vacuum. As we all know, space is not all composed of only a vacuum, it's full of that might affect how light travels? And its speed, is not constant.

Am I on the right track?

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

i will try to show how the lenses inside lenses interacte with one another in the ISM and IGM

at Inter Stella scales the two star lenses are focusing on each other in the ISM
these lenses are inside a larger a galaxy lense.
when the two star lenses move in relation to one another they act like a telescope with a shifting lense

imagine how a microscope works the magnification is because two lenses are focused on each other and by shifting the distence between the two lenses (closer and further away) the image increases or decreases size and focus
this is like fig A in the diagram the two lenses interacte and factor into each other.the effect of the two lenses is like a microscope in that everything is magnifyed including its perceived velocity so the effect is different in the ISM than in IGM

in figuar Z
the smaller sun lenses are inside the larger gravity lenses
the effect of the two galaxies lenses factor into each other and the shifting distences inside the galaxies
(between the star lens and the galaxy lens) and between the two galaxies directly
allow a range of effects

example if we were to look at an ant under the microscope
it looks bigger than it acually is and in distence terms moves too fast

so image a magnifying glass with a smaller magnifying lens inside it.
if you move the outter lens you can increase magnifycation
if you move the inner lense you can get magnifycation
but what happens if the inner lens is moving away from you while the outter lens is moving toward you.

then factor in the effect of having two lenses with lenses inside them magnifying off each other
(like a telescope) depending on which lense is moving and in what direction will depend on the magnification or the effect encounterd

the posabilities are
both galaxies are stationary in relation to one another and only one star lens is moving
both galaxies are stationary in relation to one another and both stars are moving in their lenses
the galaxies are moving away from one another and the stars are stationary inside their lenses
the galaxies are moving away from one another and the stars are moving inside their lenses

now depending on what lense is shifting and in what direction there are over twenty combinations of how individual lenses can be effecting the observations
depending on whats acually moving its like looking through binoculars at a pair of binoculars
you can shift focus to see the lense of the second pair of binoculars and the second pair of binoculars can shift focus as well and you can increase or decrease the acual distence between the binoculars
depending which focus is shifting or weather the distence between the binoculars is shifting will decide what the effects observed are


edit on 10-3-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by bhornbuckle75

please refer to the post above this one for the shifting lens implications
now we will add gravatational effects into the lenses
as light exits the galaxy it is effected by the gravity of the galaxy lens
so we have a shifting focus that is also being effected by gravity
when we factor the gravity/light effects with the density/shifting lens distence effects
we get a shifting lenset that effects light as it is shifted and the lenset itself is under the influence of gravitys lensing effect.
when the two effects factor against one another gravity light distortion and density distence distortion we arive at a lensing that can distort
the properties of the light (ie streached or compressed)
the magnification of the light source
if something is magnifyed and we are looking at it, it could look like its traveling too fast
in this manner depending on what part of the system is moving will depend on what the effects are observed

THIS is a big if, BUT IF the refractional properties are changed by a shifting lens then a negitive reflective index due to shifting lens focus interaction and a changing distence between the galaxy lensets could alter the refractive index of the lens from the optical stand point
and this could make light BEND differently
or streatch light
or compress light
or change the observable wave length
give off blue shift/red shift values much higher than what is acually occouring
and how do we know which lense is creating which effect


posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:43 PM
I'm not clear here on what they are claiming are lenses - what is doing the actual refracting. Gravitational lensing I understand, but are they claiming unseen masses that are affecting the light curvature through gravity, or are they saying that different densities and compositions in the ISM are what are doing it, or something else altogether?

Also I understood the claim to include reflecting media as well as refracting media, in a sort of "fun house mirror" effect. What are they saying is causing reflection? Or am I understanding it wrong?

I could sort of see it working on an intergalactic scale, but an intragalactic scale seems a little more problematic, depending on what medium they claim is interacting with the light to cause the refractions and reflections.

When I was taking Astronomy and Physics at University, most of my work was geared towards mapping relatively nearby stars. Stellar motion occurring during light transmission from the star to the observer always fascinated me, to the point where I tried creating maps of the stars as they would appear in the event of instantaneous light transmission, rather than as they appear given the finite speeds of C. For example, any given star has proper motion and radial velocity relative to the observation point. If it is, say 5000 light years away, the star itself has had 5000 years to change position while the light was in transit to us, so we see it where it WAS, wen the light was emitted, rather than where it IS now in the real universe. Depending on the velocity of PM and RV, which is different for every star, some of them can be a pretty fair distance out of joint from what we see now.

This information can potentially change that radically, to the point where NO stellar position can ever be predicted with any certainty, which in turn has implications for an attempted travel to/from them. Imagine going on a journey to a far star, thinking you'll arrive at it's predicted position X number of years into the future, only to arrive at empty space.

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

Yes, I think it all comes down to that big 'IF'. It seems to me that no matter how such an illusion could be caused, not only would it be unlikely, but it would also have to be a perfect illusion, from every perspective within our 365 day orbit, and it would have to fool all of the various methods for determining the distance of stars. I know according to this page there are at least 26 such methods, which are described.
I guess I'll agree a that a star COULD be much closer than we think, but I think its highly improbable.

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:13 PM

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
yep, there is something fishy about red shift = speed & distance

but who am I to question the all mighty Big Bang Theory...

The problem with our "vision" into the universe is that it is essentially two-dimensional, like seeing everything with one eye. A solution to this would be to send a space telescope as far as we feasibly can, perhaps dropping off signal-relay buoys along the way to help keep in touch.

A sister telescope would be in a wide orbit around the earth, past the moon (to prevent our satellite from obstructing view from time to time). With this being accomplished, we would have at least a somewhat better vision of the universe, perhaps enough to determine distances. As images from DEEP WATCHER 1 are superimposed with DEEP WATCHER 2, we might get a better idea of distances.

Of course, it would be IDEAL to have one of the DEEP WATCHERS located several dozen light years away (or more). Or, eventually perhaps, we could send out DEEP WATCHERS in 10 different directions, indefinitely. The first one to reach the outer limits of our solar system would stop and begin working from there. The others would continue for years, and one might stop every five to ten years to begin observations. Of course, the farther away a DEEP WATCHER is, the more relay buoys would be needed.

Eventually we would have an array of DEEP WATCHER telescopes. However, we could begin with a baby step: send a single space telescope as far as we can. Within three to five (??) years, perhaps, we could be receiving stereoscopic (3-d) images of the universe. Granted, on a cosmic scale, being light years apart is ideal. But, with limited budgets at NASA, we would have to start small. Building and creating 2 sister DEEP WATCHER space telescopes at first, and expanding from there.

Keeping in mind the rate of technological advances (nano-tech, etc.) and the miniaturization of technology, this isn't too far fetched of an idea.

LAST THOUGHT: The reason I suggest this is because the video is well done. However, we really don't know if one galaxy is nothing more than superimposed optically over the other galaxy. That bit of gas or gaseous matter or dust (whatever it is) that seems to connect them could be in front of or behind one or both galaxies. The two object in between (quasars or pulars?) could be aligned (as suggested by the video) or in front of or behind. With 2-d imaging, we really have no idea. With 3-d imaging, the distance between the two DEEP WATCHERS might just be enough to clarify a great deal. And, if the width of our solar system isn't enough distance, then we need to go as far as we can and do this. For, until then, we're a pirate wearing an eye-patch trying to see which ship is closer.

edit on 10-3-2011 by GhostLancer because: LAST THOUGHT

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by mr10k

The way I understand it is...

Gravity in large amounts can bend light, acting like a mirror. You could see how this could make determining the real location of an object difficult.

So it's not just the fact that stars are X Light-years away from the position we see them in, it's also the fact that the light itself could be passing through a cosmic series of lenses and mirrors.

Matter itself, like gaseous nebulas or even a whole galaxy, can act like a lens and filter the color of light and make it seem a different color than it really is.

This means that theories that rely on the color of light, could be dead-wrong. Like Hubble's red-shift = distance theory, where he claims that the higher an objects red-shift...the further away it is.

Basically, any light in the sky could come from any other direction than what we see, and could be a totally different color than what we see.
edit on 12-3-2011 by Byteman because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in