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.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Giant Optical Magnifying Glasses in space found

page: 3
62
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:00 PM

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.

there is a new form of gravitational lensing that is optically based,
and in theory it should provide a caustic or focal point if the light through the lense is focused
much like a magnifying glass would focus the sun.

xploder

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:08 PM

Originally posted by piotrburz
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.

these "density optical" gravitational lenses acually increase size and amount of light,
they are optical in nature but rely on gravity to increase the power to collect and focus light.

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.

so in this case the flash light description fails to account for "more" light avaliable to the telescope
in fact some of these galaxies are too far away to see without these density lenses

xploder

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:40 PM
wow thanks for telling us about that im so confused but i take your word for it
saddly for me though with me it did involve ants
after all you do learn something new every day

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:50 PM

I fortied your flag situation and starred your post. This is cool. I'm reminded of two quotes:

"I look around this world we live in and understand precisely how someone could claim there is no God. What I can not fathom. Is how someone can look into the heavens and make the same claim ".

Abraham Lincoln

" Unfotunately my neck looks like a vagina "

Fat Basturd

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 04:08 PM

Did you use the works of Joseph P. Farrell or Paul LaViolette to form this theory?

I shall post what they have to say about it tomorrow once I can find the sources.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 04:32 PM
i have concluded that these lenses should have a focal point,
and if gravitational microscoping is confirmed then i would expect to see a caustic of foci at the surface of the lense.
the star lenses inside the galaxy lens act like a compound lens inside the main lens, this plus the increased gravity of the central area combine to increase and focus light onto the outter edge of the galaxy lens with magnification and increased intensity.
part of the reason this is posable is the effect on the galaxies density from gravity and partially because of micro lensing (compound lens) of the lensed light inside the galaxy.

this provides a large caustic and image artifact to be projected along the axis of rotation.
if the caustic is generated by focus of all available light then each sun bubble encountered would increase the effect.
this type of foci or caustic would be connected to the center of the galaxy, and may provide a "path" for the super luminal jets to follow.

if the light is focused primarily along the axis of rotation, it could provide a super heated pathway for matter to travel away from the super massive black hole at the center of the galaxy.

these jets could propell the whole galaxy (motion) or attract gasses for the galaxy to consume

xploder

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by LiveForever8

Did you use the works of Joseph P. Farrell or Paul LaViolette to form this theory?

I shall post what they have to say about it tomorrow once I can find the sources.

acually these are all my theories and i proposed the method to detect these lenses and how they work optically with the help of gravity

its all here on ats

i realise this is a big claim but all the proof is in my threads
including follow up posts to confirm the observations
i have not been given credit for these discoveries but there are members here that know what i say is true

and if you cross reference the dates of my threads and the follow up observations posted after confirmation then i sure you will see im telling the truth

xploder

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 04:50 PM
Has the government launched a secret program to learn how they can use this as a weapon yet?

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 06:12 PM
For everyone speculating about what focusing the power of the sun into a single focused point would look like, here might be an example.

www.route66ca.org...

Now I used to drive by this weekly when it was in regular operation and I admit I never saw 2 plasma balls, I only saw them with the mirror array focused on one point about 100 yards directly above the top of the tower. I assume that was just their "safe" configuration to effectively take that kind of plant offline for awhile.

If that ball (and seeing the two combined into one IS impressive...it's like a little Sun burning in thin air) is what the effect looks like on such a TINY scale compared to the Universe, I only have one thing to say. If the whole theory of focused light in space holds water, I hope the universe never aligns in just the wrong way to put US on the wrong end of one of those roving plasma balls...likely several times larger than Earth.

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:14 PM
Not to put a damper on a fascinating subject but I'm a little confused on the conjecture.
There is a big difference between visual and gravitational magnification and distortion, and heat magnification (per the magnifying glass as weapon discussion). There are factors such as diffusion, dissipation etc. to consider. Also keep in mind the kinetic energy of the atoms will depend on the frequency of the light so there are much better models than the traditional 'magnifying glass' per se. A weapon more analogous.to an angled set of mirrors would imho be more effective.

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:53 AM
Not sure I completely follow this line of reasoning, wouldn't I be at liberty to say any lens shaped object in the universe is a magnifying glass based on the fact that a galaxy is roughly shaped like one so it is one? I must be missing something here, I see little cited work, and no mathematics,etc. How is a collection of stars en mass acting as a concentrator of anything but just simply being a literal conglomeration of stars.
edit on 29-7-2011 by bigrex because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:05 AM

A conglomeration of stars is a gravitational system. As such, it has an overall gravitational potential, and all gravitational potentials "bend" (deflect) light around them to some extent. If the gravitational potential is large enough, it could, theoretically, bend light enough so that it focuses to a single point. Expanding on XPLodER's theory, I worked out the math to describe such a deflection (although, there's more math that I did than what's been shown here...in fact, only about an hour's work of the 4 hours I spent working it all out ended up getting posted).

What's interesting to me is not the observational possibility of this theory being right. It's the apparent mathematical/physical probability that the theory should be right.

And, XPLodER: I must say, it feels a little weird defending a theory of yours. I'm used to tearing them apart.

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by CLPrime

What's interesting to me is not the observational possibility of this theory being right. It's the apparent mathematical/physical probability that the theory should be right.

Exactly, precisely, CL has struck the nail squarely on the head; the obvious steps to take with optical, mathematical, and theoretical precision contain a lot of history already, but some of the settled directions chosen since WW2 are one famous optical discovery and no other obvious distortions proved. The telescopes are simply no-longer-in-question. But as lodER has shown some of this stuff is pretty difficult to miss unless one is intentionaly not looking for it.

David Grouchy

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:51 AM

I believe it says in the article you linked that the floating 'balls' are just light focused away from the tower at specified aim points a certain distance away from the tower that is reflecting off dust and other particles in the air. A good bit different from them being balls of plasma.

It is the light passing through the aim points, before the mirrors are focused on the tower, that gives rise to the strange phenomenon seen from the highway. Some 50 yards from the top of the tower and on either side a ball of light hangs suspended in midair. There are actually four "balls of light" but from the highway they appear to the untrained eye as two. The light from all those mirrors passing through an aim point is reflected off dust particles, water vapor and the superheated air itself to produce the phenomenon.

edit on 29-7-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by bigrex
Not sure I completely follow this line of reasoning, wouldn't I be at liberty to say any lens shaped object in the universe is a magnifying glass based on the fact that a galaxy is roughly shaped like one so it is one? I must be missing something here, I see little cited work, and no mathematics,etc. How is a collection of stars en mass acting as a concentrator of anything but just simply being a literal conglomeration of stars.
edit on 29-7-2011 by bigrex because: (no reason given)

here is a link to lensed galaxies
lensing confirmed article HERE

the national science foundation has the whole story from "how" to servey for them and how they work optically
link to National Science Foundation HERE

its a little more complicated that just shape but with the shapes we see the focus should be present

xploder

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:20 PM

thank you Wrabbit2000
this is very similar to the solar arrays you have linked to,
as an anology the sun is the source for light outside the galaxy, the array as a whole is the galaxy lens (macro)
and each individual pannel is like the sun lenses (micro) inside the galaxy (compound or group lens),
each panel increases and focuses the light to a point.

the main difference here is how gravitational potential and optical potential combine with many small sun lenses (compound) to provide a increase in magnification and brightness.

xploder

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

A conglomeration of stars is a gravitational system. As such, it has an overall gravitational potential, and all gravitational potentials "bend" (deflect) light around them to some extent. If the gravitational potential is large enough, it could, theoretically, bend light enough so that it focuses to a single point. Expanding on XPLodER's theory, I worked out the math to describe such a deflection (although, there's more math that I did than what's been shown here...in fact, only about an hour's work of the 4 hours I spent working it all out ended up getting posted).

What's interesting to me is not the observational possibility of this theory being right. It's the apparent mathematical/physical probability that the theory should be right.

And, XPLodER: I must say, it feels a little weird defending a theory of yours. I'm used to tearing them apart.

again i thank you for doing the math on this

and i am happy that you have drawn the same conclusion a me,

i have been refining the models and suspect the process would result in a "spherical aboration" along the axis of rotation of the galaxy

source wiki

the collecting potential of light for the galaxy is very large and any light traveling through the outter lens would be "collected" by each sun bubble lens (this is similar to using many small lenses to focus sun light) but the light "bent" by the interaction with the sun lenses (micro) and the galaxy lens as a whole (macro)

Simple lenses are subject to the optical aberrations discussed above. In many cases these aberrations can be compensated for to a great extent by using a combination of simple lenses with complementary aberrations. A compound lens is a collection of simple lenses of different shapes and made of materials of different refractive indices, arranged one after the other with a common axis.

source wiki

its looking like there is a good chance that under the correct conditions we could see a focal point for light exterior to the lens.

What's interesting to me is not the observational possibility of this theory being right. It's the apparent mathematical/physical probability that the theory should be right.

although the thesis is very simple and uses basic optics and gravity,
the maths gets very involved very fast.

as an observation prediction,
i beleive we will find these focal points in optical and or irfra red/sub mm depending on distences of objects ect
its possable that the easyest way to find these focal points is with infra red space telescopes as it is my opinion that the heat signature from the foci may be detectable over great distences.

that and the distence between the lens to the source may cause the light to be displayed in the ir band instead of visable wavelengths

xploder

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 09:36 PM

the question then becomes,
who do i propose the thesis to?
and how can i make people aware of this idea so that observational data can be compilied?

because i can see no reason why this could not be detected and confirmed with observations
and with observational confirmation the thesis would be a theory and more people would look into it

any ideas?

xploder

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

A conglomeration of stars is a gravitational system. As such, it has an overall gravitational potential, and all gravitational potentials "bend" (deflect) light around them to some extent. If the gravitational potential is large enough, it could, theoretically, bend light enough so that it focuses to a single point. Expanding on XPLodER's theory, I worked out the math to describe such a deflection (although, there's more math that I did than what's been shown here...in fact, only about an hour's work of the 4 hours I spent working it all out ended up getting posted).

What's interesting to me is not the observational possibility of this theory being right. It's the apparent mathematical/physical probability that the theory should be right.

And, XPLodER: I must say, it feels a little weird defending a theory of yours. I'm used to tearing them apart.

as you requested i have been looking for observational instances of both gravitational microscoping,
and evidence of a focal point for lensed galaxies.

imho
the following image is the coma supercluster in which i can see a focal point and the milky galaxy looks to be concentrating light to a "focal point"

i would contend that the "milky" appairence of the coma galaxy in the picture is due to the micro lensing of stars inside the galaxy lens.
each sun micro lens is refracting and reflecting light creating the milky look.

i am still looking for other images that i find suspect of lensing dynamics

xploder

edit on 7-8-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:17 PM

In order to truly test this, we'd have to know the redshift of the light at the focal point, as compared to the galaxy itself. Appearances can, after all, be deceiving. Thus, we can't rely merely on observation.

For instance...based on observation alone, I would agree that this appears to be a prime candidate for proving your theory.

new topics

top topics

62