It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Giant Optical Magnifying Glasses in space found

page: 2
62
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:27 AM

In general, in order to have a focal point at the center of mass, the mass would have to bend light into itself...which would make it a black hole.

The only way I can think of to get a focal point at the center of the mass without forming a black hole is to have a spherically hollow lens which focuses the light to its center. But, then, the method of lensing in that case wouldn't be gravitational, it would have to be purely optical, as a spherically hollow mass will not cause gravitational lensing within itself.

Also...I did some very rough calculations using the equations I worked out, and I can say that, given a sufficiently deflective gravitational lense (that is, one that bends light enough to form a focal point, but not so much that it forms a black hole), and given a sufficiently luminous light source, it certainly is possible to have a focal point capable of melting rock, possibly even instantaneously. My first calculation gave a melting time on the order of about a second or so using a light source with the luminosity of the Sun... but that would require an almost perfectly efficient lens.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 04:38 AM

Originally posted by XPLodER

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

It's interesting you think aliens look like ants. Think about ants for a moment. Think about what type of creature would find earth. Think about a creature that can make its way into your house even tho you sprayed and had all your windows closed, because your daughter spilled a little Kool-aid on the floor.

Good news for us, ants are stupid. We prolly stole some of their technology.

LOL

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 04:54 AM

I see it too.
It remains to be determined if the optical distortion is due to the object being photographed or the limitations of the telescope used to take the picture. For instance if taken by hubble, we could be seeing brush strokes on the polymer finish of the lense itself. But either way. The distribution of focal points is similar.

David Grouchy

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:14 AM

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

I see it too.
It remains to be determined if the optical distortion is due to the object being photographed or the limitations of the telescope used to take the picture. For instance if taken by hubble, we could be seeing brush strokes on the polymer finish of the lense itself. But either way. The distribution of focal points is similar.

David Grouchy

There's not really a distortion in that image unless I'm missing what you're referring to. It's 2 galaxies with one that blasted through the middle of the other at a nearly perpendicular angle.

I would post a link to a recent UniverseToday article where they actually use this picture when talking about how it could represent how ring galaxies are formed from specific gravitational interaction on a spiral galaxy, but UT is currently down as far as I can tell and I don't remember the article they used as their source. The effect I believe you guys are pointing to as an example is just the spiral galaxy the other crossed through. I believe the person who posted the pic was aware of that though as they said it is a gravitational example.

To the question about the focal points...while I'm sure you could make one that would vaporize rock using the Sun, you have to keep in mind that the amount of light we get from these galaxies is no where even in the ballpark of that. Most images of distant galaxies are made from fairly long exposures in order to collect enough light to be able to actually see something. I don't even think you could focus the light from the full Moon to accomplish much, and it's probably the 2nd brightest celestial object next to the Sun on Earth(and is really just reflected light from the Sun anyway.)

What gravitational lensing is really good for is to get a better view of some things that would otherwise be too distant to see much with our current telescopes, though it would be interesting to be wrong.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:51 AM

I just calculated at what distance from our Sun a light source would have to be in order to give a focal point at the Earth's location. That distance is a mere 726,327,289 m, or about 0.0048552 AU. In other words, not even twice the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Taking into account the radius of the Sun, that means that the light source must be just 30,827 km (19,155 mi) from the Sun's surface, on the side of the Sun directly opposite the Earth.

In order for the light from such an object to focus efficiently, it much be a compact light source...and, therefore, it must be extremely small and extremely bright.

Given these conditions, the resultant focal point would be located at the Earth's location.

But, then, that's not all. The sun would never be an efficient gravitational lens because of its nonuniform mass. Working with such precise conditions, the non-precise nature of the Sun's mass distribution would counteract any focusing effect its gravitational lens would produce.
Therefore, the Sun has no chance of focusing light in such a way so as to create a potentially dangerous focal point at the Earth's location.

I can't say the same, however, for larger and more efficient gravitational lenses.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:55 AM

Excellent find and presentation. S&F.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:06 PM

i would like to thank you for your hard work

then i would like to discuss the gravitational microscoping theory of mine

In general, in order to have a focal point at the center of mass, the mass would have to bend light into itself...which would make it a black hole.

the following image was part of the latest voyager release from nasa on you tube

although there has been no observational confirmation of gravitational microscoping,
it has the potential to explain some of the images we see in galaxies

the center image is magnifyed onto the exterior surface of the lense and is "magnifyed" in size and takes up the center 2/3 of the image

it is my opinion that the strange apperence of the following image is created by gravitational microscoping

the angle of incidence and image would be exactly what i would expect to see from a large gravitational microscoping lensing event.

xploder

edit on 28-7-2011 by XPLodER because: add pics

edit on 28-7-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

edit on 28-7-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:25 PM

the image is described as two galaxies in collision and i think its in infra red wavelengths
i would conclude that the "hot spot" to the left of the galaxy is acually a "focal" point with acosiated "cuastic"
and not a collision as stated on universe today where i got the pic

the interesting thing is that this object looks like the hoags object in visable wavelengths and looks like a lensing event in infra red.

i postulate that this is direct proof of gravitational microscoping,
and that light under the correcct conditions and angle of incidence can be "focused" and size and brightness increased by many factors of power.

as an optical/gravity phenomonon this is exactly what i would expect to see from an increase in magnifycation due to lensing

infact there seems to be an image artifact directly on the opposite side of the lens
it looks like a smaller version of the same galaxy image but in reverse and much smaller
up from center to the right

xploder

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:42 PM

you are correct about the interpretation of the images of the galaxy collision,
but the explination is only theory atm
i would contend that this is incorrect and that another explination can explain the images

To the question about the focal points...while I'm sure you could make one that would vaporize rock using the Sun, you have to keep in mind that the amount of light we get from these galaxies is no where even in the ballpark of that. Most images of distant galaxies are made from fairly long exposures in order to collect enough light to be able to actually see something. I don't even think you could focus the light from the full Moon to accomplish much, and it's probably the 2nd brightest celestial object next to the Sun on Earth(and is really just reflected light from the Sun anyway.)

What gravitational lensing is really good for is to get a better view of some things that would otherwise be too distant to see much with our current telescopes, though it would be interesting to be wrong.

something to consider would be a lens to lens interaction where the focused light from one galaxy could be collected and re-focused by the transition of a second lens.

i would like to point out the effect of having a disc of stars inside the lens is like a compound lens inside a much larger lens, as light transverses the galaxy and stars the amount of light is increased.
if the exterior foci was the surface of another lensing galaxy we could then factor the effects of one lens against another.

in this manner many small lenses embeded inside the galaxy would increase luminosity exponetially,
increasing the effectivness of the galaxy lens dramatically.

if we asume that the lensing galaxy increases in medium density the closer to the center of mass the medium is then the area at the center of the lens would be stronger than its outter edge.

this change in refractivity because of medium density and gravity would allow the focusing of all collected light from an increasing refractivity medium in an increasing gravity environment

xploder

edit on 28-7-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:47 PM

Originally posted by tomten

thank you very much

this optical gravity lensing is new and slightly different from the info you linked

to catch up to speed on the latest developments please read this\
link to national science foundation (optical lensing galaxies)

it has the latest on density lensing,
how they work, how to find them ect

xploder

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:58 PM

I went back and read your thread from last year on gravitational microscoping, and I'd love to see more observational examples of the effect, to see what sort of merit it truly has. You have at least two examples, but all galaxies have observationally hidden mass. Can gravitational microscoping be applied to all galaxies under all circumstances? And are there more than two cases where the proposed phenomenon is demonstrated more explicitly (as is the case with Hoag's object)?

Of course, I know the answer to both of those questions. I just want to be fair and see how you answer them.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:00 PM
WOW! Did an eagle just fly in the room? Because something just went waaay over my head. I can feel the shape of my forehead changing as I read.

Thanks for all this, I'm going to slowly, over several days, pour through this info and your links and threads. Hopefully I'll have focused dreams about seeing through the lens of a galaxy, peering into the lives of my alien counterparts. Or, I'll dream of an invention of free energy using the infinite universal light! I'm gonna be a millionaire! HEHE

All thanks to ATS. I love this place.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:02 PM
The focal point might not be hot anyway because you need to really have it in the right angle and right distance to even come up with the hottest point and that could in itself be determined by short distances which makes the likelihood very rare.

But if there was a burning focal point imagine a planet passing through it for bad luck.

Then again imagine what if far away planets from their sun were heated up this way making not having a sun probable with renegade planets heated to make it habitable, something for the sci-fi movies, makes a good star trek episode.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Dashdragon

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

I see it too.
It remains to be determined if the optical distortion is due to the object being photographed or the limitations of the telescope used to take the picture. For instance if taken by hubble, we could be seeing brush strokes on the polymer finish of the lense itself. But either way. The distribution of focal points is similar.

David Grouchy

There's not really a distortion in that image unless I'm missing what you're referring to. It's 2 galaxies with one that blasted through the middle of the other at a nearly perpendicular angle.

I would post a link to a recent UniverseToday article where they actually use this picture when talking about how it could represent how ring galaxies are formed from specific gravitational interaction on a spiral galaxy, but UT is currently down as far as I can tell and I don't remember the article they used as their source. The effect I believe you guys are pointing to as an example is just the spiral galaxy the other crossed through. I believe the person who posted the pic was aware of that though as they said it is a gravitational example.

To the question about the focal points...while I'm sure you could make one that would vaporize rock using the Sun, you have to keep in mind that the amount of light we get from these galaxies is no where even in the ballpark of that. Most images of distant galaxies are made from fairly long exposures in order to collect enough light to be able to actually see something. I don't even think you could focus the light from the full Moon to accomplish much, and it's probably the 2nd brightest celestial object next to the Sun on Earth(and is really just reflected light from the Sun anyway.)

What gravitational lensing is really good for is to get a better view of some things that would otherwise be too distant to see much with our current telescopes, though it would be interesting to be wrong.

Yes indeed, thanks for your clarity.

Also, the image with the glass shows spherical abberration, a common physical refraction of light which has absolutely nothing to do with gravitational lensing.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:09 PM

as per previous discusions with star or sun lensing you are again correct,
but when the same equations are preformed with the light source outside the sun/star "bubble" a different out come is achived.
the light is only bent in the outter edges of the lens meaning over larger scales light would be expected to be refracted in the outter 1/5 of the lens, this means that light would travel "through" the center 4/5 of the lens without much effect on direction.
this is only posable when light from one medium density enters into another with a much different refractive index,
like when light travels through the density lens (galaxy) and through the outter edge of the helio bubble lenses 1/5 outter diameter.

if the light ray was to enter the very center of the lens and through the plasma surface of the star the total amount of lensing observed would be much higher.
than if the same measurement was made inside the "bubble" with the star

xploder

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:13 PM

WOW! Did an eagle just fly in the room? Because something just went waaay over my head. I can feel the shape of my forehead changing as I read.

Thanks for all this, I'm going to slowly, over several days, pour through this info and your links and threads. Hopefully I'll have focused dreams about seeing through the lens of a galaxy, peering into the lives of my alien counterparts. Or, I'll dream of an invention of free energy using the infinite universal light! I'm gonna be a millionaire! HEHE

All thanks to ATS. I love this place.

No free energy sorry.
Heh the amount of energy would be really low i don't know it could even exceed 1W.
Remember all images of galaxies, stars are from telescopes which amplify natural light that comes from stars, even by milion times. Even so it's very, very weak. Amplification is process with needs energy, so we can't amplify something without energy spend.

Imagine a flashlight with power of 100W.The power that goes to light is maybe 5% of whole power. So "light stream" have power of 5W. That's not too much, because it will be dispersed on large area[it's not laser!] like 5cm radius.
So we travel 200m from flashlight and we see that light dispersed on area with radius of 5m. The irradiance is very low[maybe a 0,1 W per square meter] So to collect all of the energy dispersed on this area, our "magnificient glass" would need to have a 5m radius.
So imagine this with a telescope. Telescopes see only a part of whole light that celestial bodies emits.
edit on 28-7-2011 by piotrburz because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2011 by piotrburz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:16 PM
I'm not gonna lie. I totally thought that you found one of these floating around:

I just cannot process this sort of material, and that is what came to mind intially.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

I went back and read your thread from last year on gravitational microscoping, and I'd love to see more observational examples of the effect, to see what sort of merit it truly has. You have at least two examples, but all galaxies have observationally hidden mass. Can gravitational microscoping be applied to all galaxies under all circumstances? And are there more than two cases where the proposed phenomenon is demonstrated more explicitly (as is the case with Hoag's object)?

Of course, I know the answer to both of those questions. I just want to be fair and see how you answer them.

the short answer is no, not all galaxies would display microscoping
gravitational microscoping is dependant on a number of factors
angle of incidence to the lense,
distence between our galaxy and the galaxy under observance,
magnification power of the "host" and our galaxies,
refractive properties of the "medium" inside the galaxy under observence,
strength of gravity around the central buldge
but the largest factor on the galaxy scale would be size and shape of the galaxy "buldge" in the center

for stars
the effect on stars in our own galaxy would be noticable,
much smaller distences provide for much larger microscoping effects,
again dependant on angle of incidence,
strength of gravity a center of host star,
refractive properties of the medium inside the star bubble compaired to the exterior medium,

there has been no "official" conformation of gravitational microscoping to date,

these following images are considered by me to be "suspect" of microscoping

the first image is a infra red image of the bullet cluster (as in thread you linked)
but showing the lensing components

link to nasa pdf on bullet cluster lensing

i would contend that a small increase of magnification happens to most galaxies and we are viewing an image artifact of the galaxy in a much larger image than would be seen without lensing.
the galaxy rotational curves if scaled down may fall back within acceptable limits.

the short answer is if some galaxies side on look to "thick" in the disc or plane
and if some look like the middle is missing directy down ontop
then the predictions would be confirmed

i would expect to see a disproportionate number of side on galaxies with "thick rims"
and any galaxy that is exactly "face on" (angle of incidence) to the observer would look to have its middle missing.

i had found the side on pictures but did not mark the link
now i have the "face on" shots hoags objecti can say that most if not all galaxies are lensed, and with some
angles of incidence providing much larger magnificational properties.

we would only see the out of perspective size scale

xploder

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 02:55 PM
I found this really interesting,thanks OP.

Cheers

new topics

top topics

62