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.


the optical illusion of universal expansion "thesis"

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:02 PM
i have been trying to understand why the universe is expanding, and why the universe is speeding away from us at incredible speeds, and weather these two factors are related.
what i think is happening is acually an optical illusion created by refractive and reflective optics not the cosmological expansion and near light speed motion of far distent galaxies.
there is a well know and little understood problem with the red shift of objects that has not to my knowledge been explained, when looking at the universe around us we see galaxies of different red shift with different size and luminosity, in a linier progresion the glaxies get smaller and less luminous,
UP TO Z= 1.5 then something strange happens, the Galaxies "appair" to gain size and luminosity, in a non linier fashion. this has had me head scratching for a while now and have tryed different senarios to explain the discrepancies but had made no ground in my personal explination of how this observable effect is achieved.
there are many a mechanism that fit the bill but none have explained the effect.

then i decided to clean my glasses (dirty lenses) and things went out of focus, but close up everything i could see within a short distence was in focus, and everything past arm length was fuzzy but light seemed to get brighter and create a "larger" brighter source with lines extending from the light source. i put my glasses back on and everything returned to its normal none fuzzy, sharply focused sky.
this got me thinking about optical distence and focus, could a galaxy at the right distence "appair" larger and more luminous than it is because of focal distence convergence?

that up to a distence everything is in sharp focus and past that point the focus is non convergant and scattered light instead of focused light is observed. this "scattering" of light at the focal limit is similar to a short sighted person, everything up to a point is sharp and clear and after the foci everything is blurry.

using the mecanism of optical focal convergence the red shift dilema started to look like an optical illusion that was scattering light passed the convergence point in to higher red shifts from the non convergent light source.

everything up to the Z=1.5 red shift is acually moving at the speed we asume from the speed of recesion derived from the red shift observed.
everything past the focal convergence point of Z=1.5 is acually being scattered from our relitive position into a higher red shift than the recesional speed of that galaxy we are observing.

red shift is the doppler red shift of light as the object producing the light moves away from our apparent position, but if the focal interaction is non convergent we could derive red shift simply from the "sideways" movement of the scattered light as the light is not focused and the light itself is streached from the scattered source object.
this is like looking at an object through a telescope with the focus too far past the object, although the telescope can achieve a sharp image its focus is on the light in its convergent form to achieve a sharp image, the light from that source has a different focal convergence distence.

if we could use two differnt focal limits to study the same object passed Z=1.5 we would IMHO see light acually move sideways on its journey to our telescopes, this sideways movement would offset the spectra down in the range and produce a red shift.
the light ray is at our telescope is "combined" back into a straight line by removing "sideways movement" of the light source (over focal range) into its raw form, problem is the information encoded in the light is still shifted sideways from the non focal convergence and this is interperated as red shift.

how to describe the effect of sideways movement of light?
the difference between the glaxies at redshifts 0.1-1.5 is that our focal interaction with the light source is straight or direct (think rays) and the red shift in this range is "acual doppler red shift"
past this range of focal point an ever increasing amount of the red shift observed is acually a combination of acual doppler shift and scattered out of convergence light streached by the incorrect focal interaction with the source by our telescopes.

if we add the effect of optics to the model light can behave in ways that are unusual and unexpected,
one point to make is that our universe is full of lenses,
our star has a lense (astrosphere)
our galaxy has a lense (galaxy lense)
our cluster has a lensing effect (cluster lensing)

the lenses interact with each other and factor their effects together,
this provides the optical "prescription" that our focal convergence gives us.
if the galaxy lense is expanding the redshift of everything outside that lense is shifted down
increasing lense generated redshift
not only would this type of optical lense expansion effect light in the red shift we observe
it would also make the universe look like it was expanding (optical illusion)

could a percent of redshift passed 1.5 be explaind by focal convergence errors?
could a percent of redshift be from the expansion of the lense our sun is in (the galaxy lense)?
could these lenses themselves be contributing to redshift directly as a boundry to transition?

what if redshift was not a linier example of cosmological expansion or cosmological ression but an asortment of different factors effecting light?
do we have short sighted glasses on?
without expansion the fact that whole galaxies are moving at near the speed of light would require more energy than avaliable in the entire know universe.
it seems more logical that most of what we see is an illusion


edit on 17-4-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:05 PM
"could a percent of redshift passed 1.5 be explaind by focal convergence errors?"

No. Absolute distances have been computed using Cepheid variable stars. The redshift is real.
edit on 17-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by mbkennel
"could a percent of redshift passed 1.5 be explaind by focal convergence errors?"

No. Absolute distances have been computed using Cepheid variable stars. The redshift is real.
edit on 17-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Cepheids have recently been shown to "loose mass" and be sourounded by a Astro sphere or bubble that can be effected by releases of material from the star.
if correct the distence to a cephid canot be calculated from size luminosity calculations because of the lenses involved,
the other point is that distence from cephids are like a ladder,
if the first measurement is out to the closest cephid the second measurement compounds the error and the distence calculation gets less acurite the further out you go.

the other problem is the Z1.5 redshift errors
how can a size luminosity diagram be used if the size luminosity relationship is non linier?

edit on 17-4-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by mbkennel

i do not say that we dont observe red shift
i only question the mecanisms of what produces it
and how can a non linier progression of size/luminosity provide absolute distences?
considering the distence is calculated from a linier size/luminosity diagram?

edit on 17-4-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

I don't think it's an illusion at all.

With most bodies in the universe giving off energy of some sort it's a big heave-ho to get rid of the energy so everything moves away from everything else like a huge bunch of balloons all being blown up at once. Black holes are the exception but a rare one, a bounce-back from meeting all the other expanding stuff after a supernova returning to their place of origin (the star centre) and going "blip" into nothingness and taking anything nearby with them.

Wouldn't this explain why things further away are moving faster (I think that's correct) rather than from the centre of a big bang with things further away slowing down due to resistance and loss of energy like explosions as we know them here on earth?

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

Astronomers are aware of the issues of colour astigmatism produced by lensing. This is normally referred to as "spherical aberration", although there can be many reasons for it. Generally lensing aberration is not considered to be an issue in the determination of red-shift.

In the case of red-shifts, we know about the spectra of various chemicals when they are radiating from a star. In this way, we can determine the approximate chemical structure of stars by the spectral intensities produced at each frequency of light. With red shifted stars, we see exactly the same pattern of chemical signatures in the spectra, but shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This red-shift could not be explained by colour astigmatism/lensing.

Coupled with what we know about a particular class of stars (the cepheid variables) we can verify that the furthest cephid stars are, on average, shifted further towards the red end of the spectrum and the close ones have a smaller red-shift.

The only consistent description that could explain this is optical doppler shift where the furthest stars are receeding from us faster than the nearer ones.

Although we have by no means understood all the mysteries posed by red-shift, current theory fits closely to observation.

Thank you for your post, excellent inductive reasoning as you have shown, can lead us forward, even if any particular path seems to be a false trail. Star & Flag for you.

edit on 17/4/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by nerbot

as energy goes it would take all the energy in the universe to speed up a galaxy to the speed of light,
what you are describing is dark energy, the expansion of the universe does not comply to gravity and should collapse back in on itself,
this is not happening and some have used dark energy as an exception to explain the expansion,
similar to the energy being given off from things repeling objects away from each other.
but there is a much more simple mecanism for the obsevations of moving galaxies and expansion and that is that we observe the universe through optical means, so optical solutions to explain the "perceived" expansion can explain why galaxies "appair" to seperate and why they "appair" to be traveling away from us at near light speed. (which would take more energy than all the mass in the universe contains) so if we subsitute current

optical explinations we can do away with,
the expanding space theory
the near light speed resesional galaxies
dark energy (the unfound "stuff" that causes everything to move appart)
the beginning of space and time (the big bang thesis)
the misssing mass of the universe (everything is much closer than it looks)

if we can use galaxies as gravatational lenses and we are in a galaxy are we acually looking at an "optical illusion" that confuses our "models" and allows for complex optical illusions as our lense interacts focally with the universe around us?

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:18 PM
reply to post by chr0naut

astigmatism or spherical aberations apply once the the galaxy "bubble" is entered this causes an aboration on the outter surface of the galatic lense of the galaxy we are observing so the "image" portrayed on the outter edge of the lense is already "an artifact of aberation" we then focally interact with the image artifact on the lense surface and not the acual object contained within the lense.
it is the focal depth of the telescope on the surface that creates a second aberation.

im not sure if i have explained it properly but imagine a bubble with an "image" of what is in the bubble on its outer surface, and because we have focused on the image artifact and not the acual object under observation there is a second optical effect we are focusing on the focal lense surface AFTER the aboration and this allows for a exterior abouration from the curvature of the lense to create a different focal range for us to interact with.

its like looking at an image of an image that has two aberations occouring

thank you for you imput you know your stuff

edit on 17-4-2011 by XPLodER because: add picture

new topics

top topics


log in