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.

 

Space Bubbles imply Density/Gravity

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
this post is intended to aggregate info about the recent changes in the universe through my eyes

the first point to note is that density is now a factor in gravitational lensing
this is different from the mass warping space time (einstien) and requires a refractive medium to achive lensing.
what does this mean?
this means that the universe is a refractive medium in which gravity can enhance the "refractivity" of the medium that light travels through.
in its most simple form the gravity of an object attracts gas and medium density towards its center of mass.
this effects the transition of light through the denser medium, and increases refractivity of the medium.
this allows a much smaller mass to effect the transition of light because of the increase in optical density of the medium light is traveling through.

this is different from just mass warping space time, in this case the mass attracts a medium to be "denser" closer to mass.

NASA now describes the heliosphere as a bubble,
this too requires a new description of space time, if the Sun is in a bubble the bubble must be in a denser medium. what does the bubble "exclude" to form a bubble?
for the pressure from the sun to create a bubble in something there must be a medium for the bubble to exclude to form the bubble.

how dense is the "excluded" medium density outside the "bubble"?




we have a "local" magnetic feild created by the sun that extends out into space and abruptly breaks down, at what point does the interstella medium become denser?

if there is different densitys of medium inside and outside the "bubble" how does this effect light?

NASA released the news that there "could" be 100 million mile wide bubbles between the helio shock and bow shock of our "local bubble", this implies that the difference in density is "Significant".
does the "bubble layer" show the density increase of the inter stella medium?

what does it affect when we are in a bubble (heliosphere) looking out of that bubble through massive bubbles (think compound lens) and then into a medium density that is more dense (think liquid).

the optical implications are that an unexpected lense (compound lens) inbetween different medium densites, that are magnetic and sperical could affect the "implyed" distence calculations we use to measure distence from our sun. but that is just the start, what "shift" is generated by the transition through large boundries of magnetic "bubbles"? (interesting lensing phenomonon)

does this explain the redshift of stars? (spherical aboration of light through a magnetic feild)
does this explain why hubbles constant changes all the time? (different angles would show different "aparent" expansion)
how does light change on its path through the helio bubbles and throught the magnetic bubbles?

the helio bubble act like a primary lens and the helio shock boundary acts like a lens outter surface.
the "magnetic bubbles" act like a secondary lens (compound lens) that optically effects light and distence and brightness of objects.
so when we measure "flux" or "luminosity" or "size" or "distence" from in side of our "bubble" how can we account for the optically refracted gravity enhanced lensing effect?

example
if the medium inside the bubble was like air
and the medium outside the bubble was like water
and between the different densities we had a "modulation" boundry (compound lens)
we would have an effective optical and spectrally distorting lenset, to account for.

now add to the example a galaxy has a liquid "density" but what is outside the galaxy and is there another medium density "increase" between inside and outside of the galaxy "bubble"
in this example there is a lens (helio ) embedded inside a galaxy lens
the two optical lenses "factor" or interact through the internal galaxy medium and provide for a "space based telescope"

this again begs the question
how can we be sure of "distence" or "size or "flux" or luminosity, of objects outside our galaxy?

in astronomy we use red shift for a velocity indicator, and we use a size/luminosity diagram to define the nature of stars, but if this is in doubt we will require a reclasification system.

when we measure the "redshift" of stars are we recording the star or its "bubble lens"?

if the medium densities are different between the inside and out side of our bubble, and the density is more "viscous" or thicker outside, how does this effect the "gravity" that we use in our density?

i would asume that in our medium density the "viscosity" or medium density interaction between masses would be "less" than the effect of viscosity in a denser medium between. this is counter intuative for sure but using fluid dynamics and spherical interaction the denser the medium the more "energy" can be imparted through the medium and affect other masses.

works like the venturi action in one of my previous threads

example
two empty soda cans in "air" on a glass surface
blow "air" between the cans and they are attracted together

compair
two cans in water on a glass surface
blow "water" between the cans



the higher the medium density the more mass can be moved with less effort
so in a strange way the medium allows for attraction between objects (instantly)
as well as the mass attraction

so if there is different densities to account for, different amounts of gravity inside and outside of the bubble would be expected
different optical properties would create lensets to "confuse" our distence, size
and modulation properties "could" account for a portion of redshift

this leads me to the conclusions,
objects are "much" closer to us than they "appair"
redshift "may" not be a "velocity" indicator as much as a medium density indicator (internal bubble density)
a small component of "gravity" are caused by "medium density expansion" (in our bubble)
a larger propotion of gravity would be effected in a denser medium
difference of the "bubble area" could effect our perception of an expanding or contracting universe.

here is a diagram i draw a while ago to try and understand the optical effects of density/gravity
and it has lead me to beleive that the universe has many different densities.





i hope to spur debate and risk ridacule for asking these questions
and giving my interpretaiton of the universe
but hey i have been wrong before hopefully some one can show me where im wrong here


xploder





edit on 15-6-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

edit on 15-6-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

edit on 15-6-2011 by XPLodER because: add pics

edit on 15-6-2011 by XPLodER because: add video

edit on 15-6-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


S & F for the effort Will read when i wake up.

Does this have anything to with your theory.
www.physorg.com...


And yes i realise you probably formulated this new idea because of the weird discovery of bubbles in the heliosphere right?


I like the idea You should check out the thread on White Holes(creates or spits out matter) And Black Holes. I think it could be related in someway to your theory.


Perhaps different densities do exists and different gravities outside of our purported bubble.

Perhaps we can travel Faster than the speed with of light with conventional methods once we leave our bubble.

Perhaps when we leave our bubble we are taken to worm holes in between stars interconnecting the bubbles.

I am just postulating different theories.

Do you think maybe when we travel to other stars there may be different laws of physics there?


So maybe we see plasma, solid, gas, liquid, _______ (Blank) I believe there may be a 5th one and that is Space.

The emptiness may count for one as well because it warps when object has gravity and travels faster and warps space time when object spins. So space acts much like liquid when planets and stars and other objects travel through space. We may one day find that Space is not the absence of matter but space is also something itself the least dense of all existence. This may also be what accounts for the missing matter.

The Light may have mass as well imagine all the light added up floating through space forever. So much light would congregate away from galaxies from constantly leaving the galaxy would this not tug galaxies away from each other if Light has mass as some suggest. Even if its minimal look how much light is being emitted all the time.


edit on 15-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I very much enjoyed your post and will be doing some research on this to, hopefully, constructively reply next time.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by QpenMinded
 


welcom to ats
i look forward to your interpretation of the material


xploder



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


acually the link you provided is the conformation of einsteins theory of frame dragging
it would be very different from what i propose

in einstiens space time there are "frames" that represent space/time
a box that contains space and time and these "boxes" are curved in relation to rotation
whereas space time "the boxes" are warped due to gravity

my interpretation is that refractive medium is attracted to the electrostatic discharge that is "gravity"
this provides a denser medium.
there is a "second order effect" involving how the mass of two or more objects interact with one another
there is a density interaction of a moving medium density (attracted by electrostatic gravity)

imagine the two cans are planets
the air is the medium density
and when you blow through the "cans" they are drawn together because a low pressure area is formed between the cans.
this effect is nearly instant and it is caused by the movement of density not the geodesic warping of space time.
if the air was replaced with water
the second order effect would be increased proportionally to the increase of "viscosity"
or thicknes of medium traveling between the inner surfaces of the cans.

so if the desity is "thicker" the effect is increased and the distences between the objects can be larger
or the speed of attraction is larger.

i really enjoyed your theory on the cumulative mass of all the light in the universe,
if we were talking mass inertia
a photon or high energy ray could hit the atmosphere like a base ball


star


xploder



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Hello members,
So with all these different densities in the "vacuum" of space does that mean that the " ether" term is applicable now



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tri-lobe-1
 


we are avoiding confusing the issue with either
and the principal has more to do with refractive optics and hydrodynamics
basically there is two parts to gravity
the first and primary part is imertion in an electrostatic field and the mass derived effects of "electrical gravity"
the secondary and less potent part is hydrodynamic and is factored of the medium density of the space that the mass resides in
and if there were different densities inside and outside the bubble the seconary effect would have a larger effect overall on "gravity" (denser outside bubble medium) which would increase lensing potential

either is the wrong explination of these two processes and their combined effect in gravity systems

xploder
edit on 15-6-2011 by XPLodER because: add more

edit on 15-6-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 




And yes i realise you probably formulated this new idea because of the weird discovery of bubbles in the heliosphere right?


acually i have written a thread postulating the lensing dynamic of individual galaxies
using a model of density/gravity from 18/11/2010
link to ats a universe full of lens shaped bubbles


and the model showed a lensing potential but with two distinct lensing boundaries
this was in 2010 well before the NASA release of the density lensing of individual galaxies (gravitational lensing)
and well before the 2011 release of the NASA helio bubbles (density interaction)

it turns out that one of the boundries have bubbles,
i personally expected something a bit different but the boundry with bubbles still fits with the models
for optical/density/gravity lensing

i suspect these "bubbles" only look like "bubbles" and there is a more complex interaction going on
but that is for another thread.

at this stage the bubbles (nasa helio) work in the models
and account for most of the expected effects
so i have been writing on ats about this for nearly a year now
and the nasa news on the helio bubbles adds credence to my theories and models
(except the defination of these "bubbles")
as i beleive that they will prove to be something very different that has the "effects" of a bubble

xploder



edit on 15-6-2011 by XPLodER because: add thread link



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by TheUniverse
 




And yes i realise you probably formulated this new idea because of the weird discovery of bubbles in the heliosphere right?


acually i have written a thread postulating the lensing dynamic of individual galaxies
using a model of density/gravity from 18/11/2010
link to ats a universe full of lens shaped bubbles


and the model showed a lensing potential but with two distinct lensing boundaries
this was in 2010 well before the NASA release of the density lensing of individual galaxies (gravitational lensing)
and well before the 2011 release of the NASA helio bubbles (density interaction)

it turns out that one of the boundries have bubbles,
i personally expected something a bit different but the boundry with bubbles still fits with the models
for optical/density/gravity lensing

i suspect these "bubbles" only look like "bubbles" and there is a more complex interaction going on
but that is for another thread.

at this stage the bubbles (nasa helio) work in the models
and account for most of the expected effects
so i have been writing on ats about this for nearly a year now
and the nasa news on the helio bubbles adds credence to my theories and models
(except the defination of these "bubbles")
as i beleive that they will prove to be something very different that has the "effects" of a bubble

xploder



edit on 15-6-2011 by XPLodER because: add thread link



Spun density... Bubbles within bubbles. A fractal pattern. Frame rate designed out of singularities. Sounds familiar...






I don't think this missed the mark by much: www.myspace.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


thank you for that reply

i read the information linked and you are very right
some things disagree with my models but taken as a whole your theory is VERY interesting

i like this picture


link to source

and the touroid models have some very interesting consiquences when implanted into my models
i find the "bubble" to work better but i will be testing the shape in high grav models to see if there is a relationship between this shape and the effects observed.


an interesting point is SPIN as you have pointed out
and the effects of spin on medium density


the outter surface of an atom was measured for sphericallity
and found to be an almost perfect sphere
the helio sphere is now described as a bubble due to its almost perfect sphere shape

the open source science idea resonates with me
i like the idea of making science more available to everyone


only through the sharing of knowledge will we as a race become one

xploder



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join