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.

 

new gravitational lensing science opens up the universe

page: 2
77
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
So strange that you have posted this, i just came to ats to see if anyone knows anything about David Wilcox's theory about the "looking glasses" the government has been using to look into time-space. "The 2012 enigma" is the name of the doc, check it out if u have time. I will read through your post properly as soon as I have finished watching this.




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
This thread is a very nice presentation and I will have to review it thoroughly later when I have some time.
Thanks OP.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
This of course means what we observe is not what it seems to be, the distances are wrong possibly the observed galaxies moving away from each other obersvation which brought about the big bang theory.

Just shows how little we know compared to what we think we know. The universe might be just small bubble but the lights been bent about so much we think it´s big.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
In the established institutions of astronomy, no one hears, no one sees. If galaxies and quasars are connected, z cannot be a measure of distance and the Big Bang is falsified. Textbooks will be rewritten. Grants will be lost. Careers will be undermined. Professors will be fired. The work of a century will die in vain.

But even as astronomers stop their ears and blinker their eyes, they continue to gather the evidence that testifies against their pet theory




Further considerations raise doubts. Doubts raise further questions. Curious minds want to know: What else could it be? Item: If the mass distribution matches the luminosity distribution in the galaxy (it’s more or less spherical and symmetric), the lens should produce a smeared-out ring, not four sharp images. Item: When the z of the quasar is set to the reference frame of the galaxy (1.73 – 0.31 = 1.42), it falls on a “preferred value” of z. (In the Big Bang, “preferred values” of z can only mean that galaxies and quasars are distributed in shells centered on the Earth, something even more unlikely than the coincidental alignment of four quasars and a galaxy.)


www.thunderbolts.info...


here is an interesting finding with gravitationally lensed quasars and dark matter


Image: Model prediction of what the four images of the background quasar RXJ 1131-1231 should look like, as lensed by an intervening galaxy (left). Chandra X-ray observations show a strong anomaly in the middle of the three images on the left side of the panel (right). Credit: D. Pooley (Eureka Scientific).





Pooley’s team found that to match what Chandra sees, the galaxies must consist of 85 to 95 percent dark matter in the region through which the background light from the quasars passes. Interestingly, these regions are between 15,000 and 25,000 light years from the centers of the lensing galaxies.





in the picture above the pannel on the left is what is expected by gravitational lensing
the pannel on the right shows what is acually observed,
its looking like "dark matter" is obscuring the image and models show that dark matter must be present to change the image to what we acually observe

is this the first picture that "implies" dark matter is present inside galaxies in "ribbons" of dark matter
the area where both the quasar images and the "signature" of dark matter are in the area of the lens with the highest magnification, approx 15,000 to 25,000 light years from the center of lensing galaxies.

could these new lenses be used to "quantify" or "infer" the properties of dark matter elipticals in the prime lensing area?

the models only seem to work with a dark matter component and without the dark matter elipticals the models fail to explain the obserable images.

so the fact that the quasar is being "lensed" in the area of highest magnification (density lens) shows the predicted magnification and acosiated brighness increase in the lens allows the quasar image to be seen "through" the lens optically with the gravitational effects increasing the "lense strenght" and giving multipule images of the same object.

this has been demonstrated as being more than just a statistical anomoly,
it has been varifyed by observations.

as to the halton arp images, some if not all acosiations with high red shift foreground objects can be explained with the lensing phenomonon (depending on ) angle of incidence to the lense, angle of back round object (quasar in this example) and its angle of incidence to the lense, strength of gravity inside the lens and density and refractivity of the medium inside the lens.

this should show that two different red shifted objects can "appair" to be in the same place but are acually a lesing image artifact with the image artifact on the outter lens surface of the parent lense

xploder
ps i like arp and his "mavrick" attitude to ask questions that are "out of place" with current understandings

xploder



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Always enjoy your threads xploder. Thanks for more legit scientific material!



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bicnarok
This of course means what we observe is not what it seems to be, the distances are wrong possibly the observed galaxies moving away from each other obersvation which brought about the big bang theory.

Just shows how little we know compared to what we think we know. The universe might be just small bubble but the lights been bent about so much we think it´s big.


very astute observation
the distence we "observe" could be an artifact of gravitational lensing
as could the observed expansion of the universe be a lensing artfact

just look at super luminal black hole jets
,
they can be explained by lensing increasing the "scale speed" we "observe" the jets because their size perspective has been increased dramatically


Since the early part of the 20th century, when astronomer Heber Curtis first trained his telescope on the object M87 shown here, scientists have observed distant objects in the sky with jets of material (Curtis called them "Straight Rays") being spewed out at velocities approaching the speed of light. But within the past few years, astronomers have discovered that powerful accelerators of material are also found close to home, in our own galactic neighborhood, as nearby black holes with jets.

Dr. B. Alan Harmon(pictured below, left) of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center will be presenting the results of multi-wavelength studies of these "Superluminal Sources" - so-named because relativity effects cause the jets of material to appear to be moving faster than the speed of light - in an invited presentation on Wednesday, June 11, at the 190th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

In order to make the jets like the one shown at the upper-right of the picture above, deep in the nucleus of a distant galaxy, something must accelerate particles to very high energies. The only way we know of to supply that energy is from the immense gravitational energy reservoir of a black hole. However, it can be difficult to see down into the center of a galaxy (the bright spot at the lower left of the above picture) to get the details of what is going on due to the surrounding stars and dust and the great distance these objects are away from Earth.


NASA source

if size perspective is increased due to lensing
so to is the "apparent" speed of the material being released
please note there is already an explination in general relitivity
this is just an alternate interpretation

xploder



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by zookey


So, due to all this gravity, we could theoritically end up looking down a telescope and see our own a sses?

i guess if you prescribed to a "closed" universe, if you could look far enought in any direction you could eventually get back to where you started

IMHO
the universe does not "curve back" upon itself
and as far as we could look we would see more and more universe to look at
but this is unproven theory at the moment


xploder



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
The part of your post that interests me the most (it's all great though!) is the part where you discuss how this gravitational lensing can shift light towards the red. This is EPIC.

It means that the "Accelerating Expansion of the Universe" is an illusion based on a false assumption about the properties of light from distant galaxies we are seeing.

For years, an (educated) hunch told me that it's a natural property of light, over great expanses of time/space, to shift towards the red. The reason I thought this was to explain (as an alternative to the traditional explanation that they are traveling away from us) the apparent "expansion" of the Universe based on observations of similar red shifts in every direction at common distances. I explained that concept quite recently and in more depth here on ATS.

However, I've never had a mechanism I could guess at that would cause light to be shifting based on time/distance.

But your post, for the first time to me, explains that potential mechanism!!

The reason this is epic is because it would mean that the Universe is NOT EXPANDING. This means the Universe could be a LOT older than what we think now. Instead of it being 13.7 billion years old (or whatever) it could be 250 billion years old - or even crazier - the Universe could be INFINITELY old. Meaning, there is no beginning, the Universe has simply always existed.

UPDATE: It appears this idea I've had (which I thought was original) isn't entirely new!! Check out this physics paper here!!


edit on 29-5-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: update



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Wow! I have got to get back to school. My mind is mush after read and cross searching this. Maybe I should just stick to agriculture.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
The part of your post that interests me the most (it's all great though!) is the part where you discuss how this gravitational lensing can shift light towards the red. This is EPIC.

It means that the "Accelerating Expansion of the Universe" is an illusion based on a false assumption about the properties of light from distant galaxies we are seeing.

For years, an (educated) hunch told me that it's a natural property of light, over great expanses of time/space, to shift towards the red. The reason I thought this was to explain (as an alternative to the traditional explanation that they are traveling away from us) the apparent "expansion" of the Universe based on observations of similar red shifts in every direction at common distances. I explained that concept quite recently and in more depth here on ATS.

However, I've never had a mechanism I could guess at that would cause light to be shifting based on time/distance.

But your post, for the first time to me, explains that potential mechanism!!

The reason this is epic is because it would mean that the Universe is NOT EXPANDING. This means the Universe could be a LOT older than what we think now. Instead of it being 13.7 billion years old (or whatever) it could be 250 billion years old - or even crazier - the Universe could be INFINITELY old. Meaning, there is no beginning, the Universe has simply always existed.

UPDATE: It appears this idea I've had (which I thought was original) isn't entirely new!! Check out this physics paper here!!


edit on 29-5-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: update


i would like to clarify the shift we are talking about here,
the "shift" is in frequency and amplitude of the wave and effects the "observed" wave length and amplitude due to the gravitational lensing, it is (in some cases) from the optical wavelength interaction with the mass (gravity) and from the difference in refractive index of the material comprising the lense (optical) or (DL)

i find this interesting though because if mass can "bend" light "sideways" (i realise it is space that is bent in GR)
then a small amount of acceleration has to occour to the photon for a lensed image to travel further than a non lensed photon, and this would cause a change to the length and amplitude of the wavelength we observe.


The reason why the above integration of energy change, which manifests itself as a change in frequency in this case since the speed of light cannot change in a vacuum (or change in speed of the photon if frequency can not change), is an approximation is that the above treatment assumes that "Y" is a constant while actually it is not. The photon's path curves in toward the earth slightly, and therefore the acceleration "A" increases slightly. Therefore the blue shift is slightly greater than the cosine law would predict. At first thought one would think that the red shift deviation going out would be equal to the blue shift deviation coming in. However the light trajectory is still being bent toward the earth, so the red shift deviation going out should be greater than the blue shift deviation when the photon reaches infinity. Adding to the deviation is the circumstance that the earth moves slightly toward the photon. This part of the deviation can be safely ignored for practical computations since it is extremely tiny. There is also an approximation inherent in the fact that "M" is not really a constant either, but changes with the frequency. However, this approximation should have no effect on the deviation between the red and blue shift, and so is immaterial to the thesis of this article.


source by Cryptonomicon

in my opinion the conservation of energy laws are at play in these equations and a small amount of energy is lost in the frequency because of the transition throught the lens so the wavelength is "shifted" by interaction with gravity and the medium of the lens.

in this way the higher the strength of the lens (gravity/refractivity) the more the wavelength and amplitude is effected.

the theory that light is shifted equally going in and coming out does not jive with the conservation of energy laws as a very small loss in energy is created at the lens surface as the light first enters and then leaves the lensing media AND as it is curved by gravity/refractivity.

if correct optical shift should be observed as optically red shifted light exiting the lense with less length and less amplitude but conserving most of the energy passing through the lens

in a way the lenses "modulate" the frequency of light and in doing so "costs" the light some energy (conservation of energy laws) apply and as a result
a high redshift bias will be found in distent galaxies that are only visable due to lensing

the ability of quasars to "shift" frequencies would be proportional to the refractivity of the lense factored into the gravitational potential from the quasar itself,
like a quasar is its own lens except the light is only shifted while escaping its own lense

xploder



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Cryptonomicon
 


this is the first part of the shift (gravitatioanl influence)

The dependence of the frequency shift on the cosine of the angle made with the gravitational field is an approximation because of the fact that the photon's trajectory changes. It follows that photons of energy should have a slight residual red shift upon passing a mass. This shift is proposed as the main cause of the cosmological red shift.


same source

very interesting reading
thank you very much for the links


im not sure if gravity alone is the answer as the refractivity of the medium is also a factor of gravity

Finally, gravitational redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field.


source


xploder
edit on 29-5-2011 by XPLodER because: add wiki reference and source



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
If gravitational lensing exists on a universal scale can it not also exist on a microscopic scale like when we look at the smallest of partials, what we think we see may not be what is there.

Now that would be earth shattering to think that what we see in every day life may not be what see with out eyes!

Now that would be something to think about.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
This is by far one of the most intriguing threads I've stumbled across here on ATS. Thank you so much Xploder.

Does this also mean that the way in which we detect what elements a planet is created from could be slightly off as well? Or at least the mass/density of the planets themselves? Just the first stuff that popped into my mind after reading your post.

edit on 29-5-2011 by Acedrew89 because: repetitiveness



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
here is a picture from NASA of high red shift cadidates suspected of being lensed by forground sources




This is a color composite image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Green circles mark the locations of candidate galaxies at a redshift of z~8, while higher-redshift candidates are circled in red. The estimated distances to these candidates have not been confirmed spectroscopically. About 20 to 30 percent of these high-z galaxy candidates are very close to foreground galaxies, which is consistent with the prediction that a significant fraction of galaxies at very high redshifts are gravitationally lensed by individual foreground galaxies. This will help as a guide for future observations planned for the James Webb Space Telescope when it is launched. Credit: NASA/ESA/S. Wyithe (University of Melbourne), H. Yan (Ohio State University), R. Windhorst (Arizona State University), and S. Mao (Jodrell Bank Center for Astrophysics, and National Astronomical Observatories of China)
› Larger image


nasa link

so our galay surveys are going to have to be adjusted to account for lensing

xploder



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Cryptonomicon
 






This diagram illustrates how gravitational lensing by foreground galaxies will influence the appearance of far more distant background galaxies. This means that as many as 20 percent of the most distant galaxies currently detected will appear brighter because their light is being amplified by the effects of foreground intense gravitational fields.


source

so it accepted that the foreground gravitational feild has an effect on luminosity


xploder
edit on 29-5-2011 by XPLodER because: add picture



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acedrew89
This is by far one of the most intriguing threads I've stumbled across here on ATS. Thank you so much Xploder.

Does this also mean that the way in which we detect what elements a planet is created from could be slightly off as well? Or at least the mass/density of the planets themselves? Just the first stuff that popped into my mind after reading your post.

edit on 29-5-2011 by Acedrew89 because: repetitiveness


if gravitational microscoping effect is observered and confirmed,
the ability to locate planets would be enhanced and kepler results would "surprise" resurchers
the "image artifact" may create problems with mass an orbital distence implyed

here is an artistic interpretation of what (GM) could look like



and if the same "gravitational microscoping" (GM) is at work at the galaxy scale then rotational speeds could be "scaled up" with "image size increase and explain how galaxies can rotate so fast without spinning to pieces.

xploder



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acedrew89
This is by far one of the most intriguing threads I've stumbled across here on ATS. Thank you so much Xploder.

Does this also mean that the way in which we detect what elements a planet is created from could be slightly off as well? Or at least the mass/density of the planets themselves? Just the first stuff that popped into my mind after reading your post.

edit on 29-5-2011 by Acedrew89 because: repetitiveness


the elements are indicated by the spectral lines or emittion lines of particluar elements encoded within light
so the elemental make up of suns should be accurite because the information is still there it is just "red shifted"
ie the lines that represent the spectra are still there they just "move" down towards the red end of the light spectra


xploder



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Cryptonomicon
 


the "official" explination of the light detected in the sub mm and infra red range is "hot dusty" clouds of molecular gas behind the lenses and the light seen is expected to be from

Particularly useful in this context, as they contain some all-important information about the early stages of galaxy formation, is a class of distant galaxies characterised by intense dust-enshrouded star formation. On the one hand, the dust makes them hard to detect with optical telescopes because it absorbs starlight; on the other hand, it is this very same dust, heated by the intense star formation, that shines brightly at wavelengths of a few hundred microns - thus they are referred to as sub-millimetre galaxies (SMGs). Thus far only observed with ground- based and balloon-borne radio telescopes, SMGs are an ideal target for Herschel, which is sensitive to emission spanning the wavelength range 55 to 671 microns.


source

but it is my opinion this is being mis-interpreted and the light is acually not from SMGs or sub mm galaxies
but instead is a function of light changing wavelength and amplitute as it transitions the lens

the reason is sub mm and infra red light does not travel very far from its source and is blocked by dust particles and this type of wave length would not penitrate the lens in the same form as it was being observed

so if the lens had a cost to transition this form of light would not be expressed on the other side of the lens

xploder



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
As we learn more about reality it seems the trend (over history) is that the Universe is less rigid, and perfect, and more weebly-wobbly, goopy, bent, warped, and twisted.

We used to think that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the planets were stuck on clear perfect spheres which moved in heavenly patterns.

Then we learned that not only are there no "spheres", but they are just floating in orbits by gravity, and their orbits aren't "perfect" but rather elliptical and different.

Now we are learning that what we see "out there" is just an illusion - that the Universe light travels through isn't a "perfect crystal" but rather a warped and imperfect medium.

Don't even get me started on Quantum Physics!!!
edit on 29-5-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


You showed a picture of a 5 pointed star,but I didn't catch what exactly it was.

That's the first time I've seen a star look like an actual star..if you get what I mean?



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join