Giant Optical Magnifying Glasses in space found

page: 1
62
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+34 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
when young i had always enjoyed playing with magnifying glasses,
from looking at small things in more detail to the curious effect sunlight has when the correct angles and distences are observed, focused light to a fine point.
no ants involved..

very quickly it becomes appairent how "hot" the focal point is (sunney day no clouds).
then when we consider the you tube videos of small mirrors "glued" to a satalite dish that form a parabolic mirror of amazing power.
some scientists have made "near perfect" reflective devices able to melt rock


so what happens when you have a Giant Optical magnifying glass in space?



that works like this




but this also causes a "optical caustic"



galaxies have the ability to act like magnifying glass,(imagine the fun of playing around with that)
we could look directly into a far away galaxy and study smaller parts of the universe





or if some light source was avaliable we could find a caustic or focal point (like with the magnifying glass)

and in some cases if the angle of light source and distence scales are correct the focus is on an angle of incidence common to ours with it we get a Giant Lazer Disco

(image for illustrative purpose, not a giant "focal flare")


so if a massive light source was shining directly on the lens one one side would there be a focal point of the path of light as it traveled throught the lense?
and would it be internal to or external to the lens?

this is an infra red image of a galaxy and light has creates 4 images of the backround "magnifyed" galaxy
in fact like the fine detail that was missed without the hand held magnifying glass, the 4 images of the distent galaxy would not be seen at all.




could Active Galaxy Nucleus (bright active galaxies) and the acociated quasar have anything to do with this?



could Giant Magnifying lenses create Giant focal points collecting and focusing light?

would the focus of a whole galaxy worth of light be powerful enough at the focus the light into a Giant caustic?

simulated caustic


with the right angles of incidence the lens could be looking into its center as the focus,
increasing the size of the centeral object

visual representation only (not considered a gravitational lens)

credit hubble space telescope



imagine having a lens with acociated caustic
(simulated caustic formed from binary sun system)


and a focal point exterior to the galaxy

these focal points could power massive jets




or even prove a propulsive force to whole galaxies

imagine the super clusters are able to be even larger magnifying glasses


im glad we cant angle these giant lenses because im sure there would be some that would want to burn something to see what its made of


all speculation today lol

xploder
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: fix picture
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: add picture
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: add more
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: fix picture tags
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: add picture




posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
cool find

I love learning about stuff like that - discovering things that have been around for ages, and all the possibilities with it. Interesting stuff



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Awesome find! Thanks for sharing. Nature is an endlessly fascinating beast, isn't she?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
cool find

but im left confused and dumbfounded



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gemini67
cool find

but im left confused and dumbfounded


if the galaxies are capable of magnifying images,
they are also able to collect and focus light,
if you have ever played with a hand held magnifying glass in the sun,
you will now the power of the focused sun,

now imagine the galaxy as a giant hand held magnifyer,
if enough light goes through the lens there should be a focal point for the light and
it would be "hot"

xploder



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


that's pretty darned cool. imagine being able to harness the focused light energy at the focal point



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Gemini67
 


you know if giant space ants attack from the other side of the galaxy
we could defend ourselves
lol
xploder



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Just as long as the Earth doesn't pass through one of those caustic focal points, I'm happy.

Someone should calculate what sort of gravitational lens and background light source would be required to focus enough of the light from that background source to form a focus hot enough to melt rock.
Actually, I would probably be one of the best people to do that calculation. Unfortunately, I'm preoccupied.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


i would be very interested to see the results if you get time please post here.
as there is many factors to consider, gravitational effects on the "gravity caustic" and the interaction with the optical focal point.

please feel free to add what you see fit too

i am interested in your findings

xploder



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
while im throwing around speculation,
i think some of the brightest sources of light around are being amplifyed by many many gravitational lenses?
on much larger scales could large "clusters" of smaller lenses increase the detectable light?

image for illistrative purpose
(not many small gravity lenses)


image used to show "group" lensing
(not acual observation)

so could many lenses cause a much smaller source "appair" much brighter than it is?

xploder



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
XPLodER,

In recognition of your continuing contributions to the field of Astronomy, Cosmogony, and Optical Physics I award you one Epic Win.


David Grouchy











Other Threads by XPLodER

Sound Powered Suns

A Universe full of bubble shaped lenses (theory)

Hubble Constant explained with galactic lenses (theory)

Stars and their lenses (an alternate view)

Hubble Spots a Celestial Bubble






posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


thanks dave

i would like to thank,
Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727
Albert Einstein ( /ˈælbərt ˈaɪnstaɪn/;German: 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955)
Galileo Galilei (Italian pronunciation: [ɡaliˈlɛːo ɡaliˈlɛi]; 15 February 1564[4] – 8 January 1642),
ATS dot com
NASA ESA hershal hubble space platforms
MOA in my home country new zealand
and all the ats members who enjoy what i do
and many other scientists that are to numerous to name


and thank you dave i love the pic


xploder
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: add more thanks
edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gemini67
reply to post by XPLodER
 


that's pretty darned cool. imagine being able to harness the focused light energy at the focal point


now that is an interesting idea,
if the focused energy could be put use.
or re-created in a lab

xploder



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I've actually decided to take some time to work it out. It'll take a while, though. I've been working on it now for about 2 hours and I'm only about half done...and the second half is the most math-intensive part. But I'll work at it and see what I come up with...I'm too intrigued to stop now.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Now imagine burning ants using a galaxy as a magnifying glass.....



Great thread.



Edit:Okay, reading the replies now I see I was beaten to my pun..

edit on 27-7-2011 by boncho because: Too slow, eskimo



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I've actually decided to take some time to work it out. It'll take a while, though. I've been working on it now for about 2 hours and I'm only about half done...and the second half is the most math-intensive part. But I'll work at it and see what I come up with...I'm too intrigued to stop now.


thank you CLPrime
that would be exellent

i look forward to your work
xploder



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
picture of Active Galaxy Nucleus and jet




source wiki
xploder


edit on 27-7-2011 by XPLodER because: add popcorn



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


So, a full page in Word, a page of my notebook, a cup of Coke, a bowl of Froot Loops, and about 8% of my sanity later...

In trying to predict the actual intensity of the focal point, we end up running into a bit of a problem - the amount of light deflected by the gravitational lens. Without a supercomputer, this much-needed variable is impossible to calculate. So, predicting the intensity of the focal point directly from the intensity of the light source is impossible.

That doesn't mean we can't calculate anything, though.

Once the light is deflected by the gravitational lens, it isn't certain to be focused on a single point (the deflection angle could very well be insufficient to focus the light at all). However, if it is focused at a certain point, we can calculate the distance of this focal point from the gravitational lens with the following equation:



where d is the distance between the gravitational lens and the focal point, M is the mass of the gravitationally lensing object, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, D is the distance between the gravitational lens and the light source, and R is the radius of the gravitational lens (which must be roughly circular/symmetrical, otherwise it won't focus efficiently).

We can also calculate by how much the Earth would be heated at the focal point:



where delta-T is the increase in temperature, A is the area of the focal point (ideally, the cross-sectional area of the Earth, if we want the Earth to burn), I is the irradiance at the focal point, t is the time the Earth has spent in the focal point, m is the mass of the Earth, and c_p is the specific heat capacity of some material on/in the Earth (for example, if we want to focus on the effect on the atmosphere, c_p would be equal to about 1.01).

And this brings us to the problem I originally mentioned - calculating the irradiance at the focal point. Doing so is impossible, mathematically.

For those who don't know, irradiance is a measure of light intensity per unit area - that is, watts per square meter, or joules per second per square meter. This quantity is huge at the surface of a star, and follows the inverse square law. However, as I stated, only a portion of the light from the light source is actually deflected by the gravitational lens, and that portion is nearly impossible to calculate (hence the need of a supercomputer - I wish I had one).

So, that's all I can do. If we had a realistic example of the potential irradiance at a focal point, though, we could now calculate at what distance the Earth would have to be from the given gravitational lens to be in the focal point, as well as how long it would take for the Earth to burn up at that focal point.

Once again, people look like ants.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


i was looking at this galaxy merger as a reference for what it would look like
pic for imagary only




this galaxy merger looks like what i propose
but in an optical interaction instead of a mass interaction

xploder



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


thanks for that clprime,
what happens if the focus point is the center of the lens as gravity would be greatest at the center,
xploder





top topics
 
62
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join