are quasars reflections from black holes?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 23-5-2011 @ 09:55 PM by XPLodER

Originally posted by nataylor
OK, three of the four objects you're pointing out are just stars (the two big ones with the diffraction spikes and the one on the far right). The other thing, the yellow splotch towards the center of the image, is likely part of the outer ring being excited by a star small enough to not be visible.

There are no quasars in that image. There's nothing massive enough to create a gravitational lens in that image.

i would tend to disagree that this is not a lensed image,
in fact the multipule images "around" the center is a hall mark of high refractivity lensing artifacts.

i do realize that you have pointed out that this is not an image of a galaxy and i accept that,
i do realize that the smaller images are not quasars as you have pointed out, and i accept that,

what i would like to point out is that you have not commented on the similarities between the last two pictures i have posted.

i would contest that the smaller images are not stars or quasars but are infact image artifacts from gravatational lensing and the reason the center is "bright" is the center reigion is being "magnifyed" by gravatational microscoping

i beleive the "ring" is evidence of a gravatational lensing effect and the smaller "stars" are gravatational "artifacts"
of a multi lense interaction.

xploder

reply posted on 23-5-2011 @ 10:17 PM by nataylor

reply to post by XPLodER

I don't see any similarities between the two cropped images you posted. One is a star with a lot of diffraction. The other is a ring of hot gas.

The ring is definitely from a supernova. 1987A has been studied extensively. It's been monitored since it was first discovered and was, for a brief time, actually so bright it was visible to the naked eye They've imaged changes in the ring as the shockwave from the nova expands into it. The animation showing that was posted previously.

To create a gravitational lens that produces multiple images, you need something with a mass 100 billion times the mass of the sun. That's the mass of a whole galaxy. But what you're looking at is only 160,000 light years away, in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is one of the closest galaxies to the Milky Way. There is simply not enough space between here and there to have something massive enough to produce a lensing effect.

There is simply no evidence there is any lensing going on in this image.

reply posted on 23-5-2011 @ 10:36 PM by XPLodER

reply to post by nataylor

as david has pointed out,
it should be a simple case of spectral analisys of the "smaller objects" you refer to as seperate stars.
do you know of the designation of these "stars"?

i have found that quasars are very likley to be lensed because of the nature of their energy and density
if a quasar is a super dense object of high energy and gravity, there is likley a lens for a larger lens to interact with
and in some ocations the image is lensed multipule times and if the refractivity and density of the lens is strong enough a "ring" is formed around the outter edge of the lense.
if a complete ring is formed then i conclude that the gravatational/density must be very high and a very powerful lens would seem like the answer.

it has to be said that quasars would provide the perfect optical focal interaction with a larger lensing source to provide image artifacts and "appairent" multipule images.

in the case of the nova picture a much smaller focal interaction with an intervening much larger source of lensing potential could provide for the image and the multipule image "ring"

i would content that the "nova" image is already lensed prior to our obsevation and most of the "acual" image is hidden "under" the magnifyed center and we are seeing seconary lensing focal interaction to create the
images i labelled in yellow

xploder

reply posted on 23-5-2011 @ 10:59 PM by XPLodER

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

Originally posted by XPLodER

in my interpretation the "ring" around the center is acually something behind the target lens and is refracted into "multipule" images of the same object (like an einstiens ring image)

This is what I am thinking as well.

I was unable to identify the stars indicated by the yellow arrows,
or find their spectral bands, which is an easy way to
determine if they are the same objects or not.
A match of the spectral omission lines
would tend to indicate that they are
the same body even though
seen as pairs.

David Grouchy

this is a pic of how i see the image being formed,

the fact that the ring is there makes me think gravatational lense,
a would suspect that at the correct alignment the lenses would factor together and a large "flash" would be seen for as long as the angle of incedence was in the correct plane of alignment

it may not be a super nova

i have been known to be wrong though so any info would be helpful

xploder

reply posted on 23-5-2011 @ 11:11 PM by XPLodER

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by XPLodER

I don't see any similarities between the two cropped images you posted. One is a star with a lot of diffraction. The other is a ring of hot gas.

The ring is definitely from a supernova. 1987A has been studied extensively. It's been monitored since it was first discovered and was, for a brief time, actually so bright it was visible to the naked eye They've imaged changes in the ring as the shockwave from the nova expands into it. The animation showing that was posted previously.

To create a gravitational lens that produces multiple images, you need something with a mass 100 billion times the mass of the sun. That's the mass of a whole galaxy. But what you're looking at is only 160,000 light years away, in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is one of the closest galaxies to the Milky Way. There is simply not enough space between here and there to have something massive enough to produce a lensing effect.

There is simply no evidence there is any lensing going on in this image.

first let me thank you for your patience with this matter

and let me say thank you also for the information you have provided

in some cases the source of the mass required to create a gravatational lense can be "hidden" in the lense behind objects that are "magnifyed" onto the outter surface which can obscure the massive object that created the lens in the first place.

so to say that the nova is not massive enough to create a lense is to say we cannot "see" the mass but if we take into account the ability to "hide" that mass (depending on angle of incedence) inside the lense,
and taking into account the strange "ring", nearly anything can be massive enought to hide how massive it is, inside a lense.

here is an artists impression of what gravatational microscoping "could" look like and remember this is on a solar scale not a galaxy scale

now if this is capable (not yet proven) at a solar scale then
we can proberly say that even smaller mass objects in a "thicker" medium density could provide for lensing potential and if the refractivity is especially high and the gravity strong then the lensing potential could be increased by a factor or more if interaction with an interving mass takes place

xploder

reply posted on 23-5-2011 @ 11:18 PM by nataylor

Can you explain these changes in the ring as observed by Hubble over a a 9-year period?

How do you explain all the indications of a supernova of a supernova that occurred at the center of the ring in 1987?

SN1987A is one of the most studied objects in modern astronomy.

reply posted on 23-5-2011 @ 11:35 PM by XPLodER

reply to post by nataylor

To create a gravitational lens that produces multiple images, you need something with a mass 100 billion times the mass of the sun. That's the mass of a whole galaxy. But what you're looking at is only 160,000 light years away, in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is one of the closest galaxies to the Milky Way. There is simply not enough space between here and there to have something massive enough to produce a lensing effect.

i was thinking about this issue the lack of enough material (mass)
but we are looking out from inside a gravatational lens, acually two of them
the galaxy as a whole and the heliosphere inside the galaxy factor together to provide a "local" gravatational lenset that we are looking through at a seconary gravatational lense (the nova)

if the two lenses focally interact then we have an explination as to how the lensing effect is achived

not proven yet but a feasable way to veiw the events

xploder

reply posted on 24-5-2011 @ 12:14 AM by XPLodER

Originally posted by nataylor
Can you explain these changes in the ring as observed by Hubble over a a 9-year period?

How do you explain all the indications of a supernova of a supernova that occurred at the center of the ring in 1987?

SN1987A is one of the most studied objects in modern astronomy.

i first would like to use the angle of incedence to the object that i have called a lense and its angle of incedence to the object in the backround that comprises the multipule image "ring"
as the angle of incedence,
observer to lense
and the lens to backround object
are seperate angles
it would require the two seperate angles of incidence to coincide along a focally interactive plane through the lense that portays the image on its outter most surface. a magnification of the center of this lense is also "consentrating " the light source from the object behind the lens to the focal center of the proposed lens

when the angles of incedence A and Z align through the lensing material a "flash" would occour along the angle of incedence for as long as they were in a common plane of alignment

i realize how crude the picture is but i hope you get what i mean

if the angle of incedence was correct the object behind the lens would have its light "focused" through the lens to the center along our angle of incidence,
and from our angle of incedence the light at the center would be magnifyed to the outter surface of the lens,
and our "local lenset" would "telescope" the aligned magnifyed light to us in a large bust of light that would last for as long as teh alinment of angles of incedence occours

this is how i see it working
be aware that none of this is proven or even thoerized at this point
and i am speculating about how it would work
i have used known optical solutions and unknown gravatational potential to explain the flash

basically all guess work on my behalf

as for the ring
i think einsteins ring fits the observed image

i hope you can understand my rambling lol

reply posted on 17-11-2011 @ 03:42 PM by XPLodER

here is an example of the gravitational microscoping

YouTube Link

Hubble directly observes the disc around a black hole

This picture shows a quasar that has been gravitationally lensed by a galaxy in the foreground, which can be seen as a faint shape around the two bright images of the quasar. Observations of one of the images show variations in color over time. This is caused by stars within the lens galaxy passing through the path of the light from the quasar, magnifying the light from different parts of the quasar's accretion disc as they move. This has allowed a team of scientists to reconstruct the color and temperature profile of the accretion disc with unprecedented precision. The level of detail involved is equivalent to being able to study individual grains of sand on the surface of the Moon while standing on Earth. Credit: NASA, ESA and J.A. Muñoz (University of Valencia)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have used the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to observe a quasar accretion disc -- a glowing disc of matter that is slowly being sucked into its galaxy's central black hole. Their study makes use of a novel technique that uses gravitational lensing to give an immense boost to the power of the telescope. The precision of the method has allowed astronomers to directly measure the disc's size and temperature across different parts of the disc.