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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by XPLodER
Nice thread
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.
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.
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.
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)
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by bigrex
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by bigrex
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.