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: 3
77
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
And why is it we can see so far out there but we can't see the our own planets up close?

I mean if we can see so far why aren't we looking at the planets up close?They always just show clusters!As far as they can see they should be able to see a hot alien chick on Jupiter..if there was one of course.

Why can't we see more planets up close?Besides Mars.Billions of planets out there and Mars is the only one we get to see up close?

If we have the technology to see wayyy past our own solar system then why can't we see our own planets up close?Should be able to see an ant's genitals on Mars with the technology we have




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
And why is it we can see so far out there but we can't see the our own planets up close?

I mean if we can see so far why aren't we looking at the planets up close?They always just show clusters!As far as they can see they should be able to see a hot alien chick on Jupiter..if there was one of course.

Why can't we see more planets up close?Besides Mars.Billions of planets out there and Mars is the only one we get to see up close?

If we have the technology to see wayyy past our own solar system then why can't we see our own planets up close?Should be able to see an ant's genitals on Mars with the technology we have

I think it is a matter of scale. Here is a link to Hubbles view of mars.
Mars from Hubble



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
wow this opened my mind up
2nd line



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I do believe the Einsteinian Theory of Relativity does account for space distortion due massive gravitational fields. I don't see anything here that suggests our understanding of gravitational lensing imaging is unknown and we are on the wrong track of understanding the nature of things. The best part about the scientific method is that new discoveries add to the verification or amendment of the theories we see as repeatable and measurable phenomena. It's really the best operable way to progress.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 



Very cool.. but certainly not new.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Great thread, very interesting ideas.
Could the lensing also cause duplication/mirroring of objects as well as distance distortion?
S&F and 'A' for effort.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
I do believe the Einsteinian Theory of Relativity does account for space distortion due massive gravitational fields. I don't see anything here that suggests our understanding of gravitational lensing imaging is unknown and we are on the wrong track of understanding the nature of things. The best part about the scientific method is that new discoveries add to the verification or amendment of the theories we see as repeatable and measurable phenomena. It's really the best operable way to progress.


how amazing would it be if we were looking through a lenset of two lenses when we look at galaxies?
if we had two lenses infront of us when we look out our galaxy and untill now we did not realize?

what if these lenses alter our perception of the distence to our nearest neibours?




the new form of lensing is "through" the lens (i have called it density lensing)
not around it as in strong gravitational lensing (einstien)

ScienceDaily (Jan. 13, 2011) — Looking deep into space, and literally peering back in time, is like experiencing the universe in a house of mirrors where everything is distorted through a phenomenon called gravitational lensing. Gravitational lensing occurs when light from a distant object is distorted by a massive object that is in the foreground. Astronomers have started to apply this concept in a new way to determine the number of very distant galaxies and to measure dark matter in the universe.


source

if you look at the date jan 13 2011
and read the article you will find this is acually a new form of gravity lensing where the image goes "through" the galaxy not around it, and the mass required is only one galaxy




and it effects at least 20% of the high red shift galaxies are lensed in this new mannor


newton would be more likley to find these lenses
although gravity does play a part in the lensing so einstien would be helpful
lol

this is xploders Density Lensing and acually magnifies the image and increases luminosity


xploder



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DGenR8
Great thread, very interesting ideas.
Could the lensing also cause duplication/mirroring of objects as well as distance distortion?
S&F and 'A' for effort.


yes yes yes
the refractivity at cetain angles "reflects" images onto other lenses and depending on the angles
an image or reflection can "bounce around" off different lenses and be in alot of reflected places at the same time.
(time lapse)

the lenses can also "create" multipule images of the same object as the light travels through the lens
here is a good example of refracted multi images of a quasar that is being lensed left hand pannel (the faint image)



take a look at what the nasa slides from the presentation say
house of mirrors!!!!!!!!



lol

with the different angles we view these lenses, different effects can be encountered,
reflected image off surface (like a mirror)
magnifyed image (size is increased or decreased)
increased luminosity (image is brighter)
hidden image (cant even see whats inside the lens)
multipule images of the same object (lensing artifacts)
mulitpule images of the same object (reflected accross different surfaces)


so what you see is not what you got


xploder



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





so the dark matter required to hold galaxies together may not be needed to explain why these galaxies are able to rotate so fast, if we take into account the ability to return the image to its "acual" size no dark energy is required to hold things together


Could you source this please? It's my understanding that the dark matter model explains why galaxies are able to form and maintain their shape due to the increased mass and therefore increased gravitational pulls towards the axis of rotation. I haven't heard anything regarding lensing imaging explaining the invisible mass/energy that's present in galaxies.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoSphere
 


the reason you have not heard of this is,
is because i am the person who first proposes that
gravatational microscoping or the idea that density and gravity combine to increase the image size of galaxies on the outter surface of a lense
can increase the "scale" size of a galaxy to our telescopes.

this is a diagram i drew in paint



here is what gravatational microscoping would look like on a solar scale (artistic interpretation)




so if there was a larger image "artifact" on the outter surface of a galaxy lens
the rotational speed of the galaxy would also have an "appairent" increase in speed

ie as the scale size of the image increased so to would the rotational speed

gravatational microscoping is not confirmed by observations at this point in time

but could explain the high rotational speeds of the observed galaxies

www.abovetopsecret.com...

xploder









edit on 30-5-2011 by XPLodER because: add thread link

edit on 30-5-2011 by XPLodER because: fix brackets



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
xploder,

Huge fan! I love your work here on ATS and cannot wait for another thread.
I was wondering whether this could possibly lend a hand of credibility to the
whole "Nibiru/Nemesis/Elenin/et cetera" idea. I am not a big fan of the whole
"doomsday 2012" idea, but, here goes: Could it be possible that the asteroid
is just a few thousand kilometers out in space, but the lens of our planet be
distorting its distanceand size? I am sure that if NASA saw a meteor this close
and wanted to keep it a secret, they would be nice enough to not take pictures
of it with any probes.

Thanks,
SeraphNB



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
could elenin be just lensing



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by seraphnb
xploder,

Huge fan! I love your work here on ATS and cannot wait for another thread.
I was wondering whether this could possibly lend a hand of credibility to the
whole "Nibiru/Nemesis/Elenin/et cetera" idea. I am not a big fan of the whole
"doomsday 2012" idea, but, here goes: Could it be possible that the asteroid
is just a few thousand kilometers out in space, but the lens of our planet be
distorting its distanceand size? I am sure that if NASA saw a meteor this close
and wanted to keep it a secret, they would be nice enough to not take pictures
of it with any probes.

Thanks,
SeraphNB


hi SaraphNB


i would like to point out that elein is a comet that comes from outside our solar system, and this means the electrical potential "stored" up within the comet may be from extra solar distences where the amount of backround energy could be very different to our "local" solar bubble.
when a comet enters our "bubble" with an excess of energy, the flow of energy from the sun to the helio sphere can "interact" with the energy stored in the comet.
this (depending on the material the comet is made of) can act like a "cathode" to the suns "anode" and a large energy release from the comet is a result.
this can increase the magnitutde of the brightness of the comet by up to 10X
this could make a smaller comet as bright as a very small sun at a medium distence.
the electrical discharge can cause a change in rotational periods and even in direction (very small)
the "voyager" anomoly that caused a change in trajectory for our satalites could also play a small part in changing the comets direction.

so under the correct circumstanses the comet may "appair" bright like a sun and be a little unpridictable

but we would see "disturbances" to the orbits of planets in our solar system if anything larger than a comet was on the way to orbit the sun.

it is my personal opinion that most solar systems are binary sun systems and our single sun system could be considered out of the norm.

the calculation nessacery to calculate weither the comet will hit the earth have been done and it will come close to the earth but if the comet has a massive "coma" or outflow of gasses as it gets closer to the sun then the trajectory is altered and the comet is subject to a larger surface area for the solar wind to interacte with.

the idea of an undiscovered planet of brown dwarf star in a binary arrangement at 3600 years is a bit hard to reconsile with, the ort cloud (cloud of asteroids) the changing strength of gravity at great distences and the movement of the sun over 1750 years (half orbit) make this binary arrangement very unlikley.

as for rouge planets gravitational lensing (backround distortion of star light because of foreground transition of rouge planets) was used to find up to 6 planets that are "free floating" or roaming" around without a sun system to be part of, it is thought that there are more rouge planets than stars in our galaxy

but these planets are not on an orbital path in our direction (hard to know) they are simply not connected by gravity directly to a sun.

the thing to remember about all this is the massive distences between objects in our galaxy,

if 100 planets "flew through" our galaxy 99 of them would have their trajectory changed but miss everything
1 may be captured by a solar system or colide with a planet or sun (guessing here)

so be aware that the solar system has been "hit" before by a rouge planet and by astoriods and by commets
but the ability to do anything about it is out of our reach

fear not the things that are out of your control
as the great distences involved and varables make any ELE a very very very small posability

in science we are always surprised so the unknown is almost expected
lol

hope this answers some questions for you as an elein thread is a bad idea with all the fighting going on

xploder



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by aka_angrygoose
could elenin be just lensing


no elein is inside our solar system and not subject to lensing
but to get an idea of the size (not mass) we could use the stars in the backround to calculate diameter

elein is likely a small comet that will brighten as it closes on the sun
if you realise this is expected (by me) and the coma is not the "acual" size of the commet
then you would be as worried as i am (not at all)

xploder



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


oh wow Xploder that was a really complex thing you put up here.

in fact gravitational lensing is a very fascinating thing to observe, but i feel the need to point out that this just occurs with enough mass distributed somewhere.
The thread may look like we do have lensing almost everywhere, and that our universe may look highly distorted because of that, but this is not the case.

§1 -- As in nature, everything isn't too perfect.

As i understood you try to make us believe that we see something different because lensing occurs almost everywhere and the universe and the distribution of stars and galaxy is in fact totally different because be are looking through multiple lenses.

That is not the case.

cause if this would be the case there would be observable glitches see statement §1
there are no such glitches or smears observable anywhere.


But (at least in my picture of the universe) there seems to be one such lensing to be existing.
And that is, -according to Penrose who wrote a few papers about that-, the area where we do get the cosmic background radiation from.

Roger Penrose put mathematical evidence, that the remains of what we commonly call the 'Big Bang' forms a wall of matter expanding away from us, which is dense enough to bend radiation and light back onto itself, leaving just small fluctuations in that process, which explain the 4 degree Kelvin radiation we observe.

There you have your ultimate lens, out there, 13.7 something billion lightyears away.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TMJ1972
 



As i understood you try to make us believe that we see something different because lensing occurs almost everywhere and the universe and the distribution of stars and galaxy is in fact totally different because be are looking through multiple lenses.


my intension is to give information of gravatational lensing
the fact that i personally beleive these lenses are "almost" everywhere
and that we have two such "local" events between us and intergalactic space,
so in my humble opinion
the universe and the galaxies we observe are acually lensed from our own point of veiw, before we even take into account the fact that what we are looking at (the observered object) could be lensing as well

this creates a "space based telescope" comprised of our helio-lens and the larger galactic-lens "factoring" their effects to gether to form a "lenset" that distorts our veiw of the universe (outside our galaxy)



it is a very complex idea and i thank you for your imput

xploder
edit on 3-6-2011 by XPLodER because: add picture



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
This is pretty cool. But I think one of the interesting ideas that one can come up with in relation to gravitational lenses that if c is actually a constant, then it would imply that the passage of time as affected by a gravitational field is not.

Which would make me guess that the age of the universe is not at all constant throughout. Areas in which light appears to travel faster (such that it could curve without passing through some refractive medium that changes c) would actually be older. This is because time would have to progress faster in order for light to cover more distance when spanning those regions. Likewise areas where light travels slower would be much younger for similar reasons.

Alternately c isn't exactly the constant we think it is. And there are other factors that can affect it which we haven't figured out yet.

Either way, it seems like trying to find the age of the universe would be a task that is impossible to accomplish. Maybe with enough data we could guess an average age, but it's likely we'll never know how old the oldest parts are.

It also brings into question as to how light-years can be used as a cosmic measuring rod if one or neither of the terms in that measure isn't consistent throughout that span which you are trying to measure. With the variation that could imply, it seems like a very rough unit of measure. (Which means the further out you go, objects in telescope are no-where near where they appear.)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pauljs75
 


you bring up some very valid points

In practice, the maximum gravitational perturbation by the Sun on the orbit of the Moon near eclipses may be taken as the time when the lunar and solar longitudes are equal. Details of the procedure are provided in the reference cited. We find that maximum eclipse occurs roughly 38±1.9 seconds of time, on average, before the time of gravity maximum. If gravity is a propagating force, this 3-body (Sun-Moon-Earth) test implies that gravity propagates at least 20 times faster than light.


so by measuring eclipses we find the speed of gravity propogation in the 3 body sun moon earth
is much much faster than light


Lastly, we note experimental evidence from neutron interferometers that purports to demonstrate a failure of the geometric weak equivalence principle, that gravity is due to a curvature of space-time. (Greenberger & Overhauser, 1980) This experiment confirmed the strong equivalence principle (local equivalence of a uniform acceleration and a gravitational field), but its results are incompatible with the geometrical weak equivalence principle because interference effects in quantum mechanics depend on the mass. This is because the wave nature of the neutron depends on the momentum of the neutron, which is mass times velocity. So all phase-dependent phenomena depend on the mass through the wavelength, a feature intrinsic to quantum mechanics.



Since the experiment confirms the applicability of quantum mechanics even in the presence of gravity, including this non-geometrical mass dependence, the experiment seems to be a step in the undermining of the purely geometrical point of view, and “tends to bother theorists who prefer to think of gravity as being intrinsically related to geometry”, according to the authors.




so if this idea of gravity does not work in quantium scales..................


While relativists have always been partial to the curved space-time explanation of gravity, it is not an essential feature of GR. Eddington (1920, p. 109) was already aware of the mostly equivalent “refracting medium” explanation for GR features, which retains Euclidean space and time in the same mathematical formalism. In essence, the bending of light, gravitational redshift, Mercury perihelion advance, and radar time delay can all be consequences of electromagnetic wave motion through an underlying refracting medium that is made denser in proportion to the nearness of a source of gravity. (Van Flandern, 1993, pp. 62-67 and Van Flandern, 1994) And it is now known that even ordinary matter has certain electromagnetic-wave-like characteristics. The principal objection to this conceptually simpler refraction interpretation of GR is that a faster-than-light propagation speed for gravity itself is required. In the context of this paper, that cannot be considered as a fatal objection.


i have come to a very similar conclusion that i can explain almost all of GR
using a density/gravity model with an near instant gravity we can propergate even light faster



The Speed of Gravity is ³ 2x1010


i diagree with the speed (i think a bit faster) and beleive it to be near instant across very large distences
but agree that gravity is alot faster than light in "local" situations

source

this is not fact
this is speculation by me and seperatly the author of the paper linked
i do draw different conclusions on some areas
but the bulk of the theory is a good starting point


xploder
edit on 5-6-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   

A gravitational lens not only distorts the image of a distant object, it can also act like an optical lens, collecting and refocusing the light to make it appear brighter. Wondering if gravitational lensing might be responsible for the unusual brightness of these objects, the Herschel scientists teamed up with CfA astronomers Mark Gurwell and Ray Blundell to use the Submillimeter Array (SMA) to help resolve the question through its superb spatial resolution.

The SMA found that indeed the bright objects were distorted images of distant galaxies. Optical follow-ups helped to solidify the conclusion


source


this is a direct conformation of density lensing (DL)



A false-color image of a galaxy in the distant universe as seen by the Submillimeter Array (SMA). The four knots in the image are all the same galaxy; it appears multiple and distorted because of an intervening galaxy (not visible to the SMA) that magnifies and deforms it. Credit: M. Negrello et al.



A gravitational lens not only distorts the image of a distant object, it can also act like an optical lens, collecting and refocusing the light to make it appear brighter.


xploder



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join