Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Giant Optical Magnifying Glasses in space found

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


What that actually seems to be is a series of dense and thin regions of gas forming a circle around a distant star or galaxy. What's being called lights actually appears to be denser regions of the gas seen floating around. The darker regions are spots where the gas is thinner, and it appears to be the displacement of the gas out of these regions that's causing the denser (brighter) regions between them.
What's displacing the gas out of these specific regions, I have no idea.




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


thank you for the corrections CLPrime

i could not make out much detail from the images and took a guess
could the "holes" be from star formation prior to ignition?

here is a picture of what i suspected was happening in the one provided


but there is no observational conformation for the theory
so i like clprimes answer best




xploder
edit on 16-8-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Another good answer. Thanks for the input. Don't mean to hijack the thread.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Another good answer. Thanks for the input. Don't mean to hijack the thread.


all cool it was a much needed distraction for me

back to the big space bubble lenses and giant galaxy lenses


it would look like the galaxy lenses with the smaller little lenses would suffer from less spherical aboration than first thought by me and a much more intence foci could be feasable......
xploder



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
One problem with the term 'Caustic'. As I currently understand it a caustic is a combination of refraction (bend) and reflection (bounce). I do accept that light is being refracted through the matter and gravity of space but do not see how it is being reflected. Here is a paper that links refraction with specific gravity to help with the equations involved www.minsocam.org...

Another problem is how does gravity affect light if a photon has no mass? I know it is commonly accepted for black holes to attract and bend light but how does it do it?

As I see it, gravity is not constant in space. The closer the light gets to suns, black holes, galaxies and such the more it bends. The elemental composition of the space will also affect the refractive index. To build a map of all the gravity and matter refractions I recommend to start local and work your way out.

For these hot spots there needs to be a strong gravitational sink to focus all the light into one point, a black hole is the only shape that currently makes sense to me as it is able to suck in light that has been polarized for other directions if they get too close. This expands the energy potential from the insignificant number CLPrime came up with in his first calculations by 360 degrees x 360 degrees x 360 degrees.

The idea of using the sun as a lens just made my head explode, is that why it is so bright to look at? It is drawing and focusing the combined light / energy of the universe?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by CLPrime
 


could the "holes" be from star formation prior to ignition?


That could certainly be the case, as well.

I think the general conclusion we can draw is that it's hard to know what we're looking at from a single image alone. As far as the entire observable universe is concerned: a picture may be worth a thousand words, but an extended study by multiple observatories and independent teams of cosmologists, astronomers, and astrophysicists is worth a thousand pictures.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
One problem with the term 'Caustic'. As I currently understand it a caustic is a combination of refraction (bend) and reflection (bounce).


I think we're using the term loosely, in this context.



The idea of using the sun as a lens just made my head explode, is that why it is so bright to look at? It is drawing and focusing the combined light / energy of the universe?


Any focal lensing by the Sun is counteracted by multiple factors - all of which have already been discussed. The Sun is bright because it's an active star.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 





Any focal lensing by the Sun is counteracted by multiple factors - all of which have already been discussed.


At first I did not understand what you where trying to do in making the Earth the focal point. But once you established that the light source needs to be on the other side of the sun at a relatively same distance away it started to click. The light from distance stars need an intermediary body for the gravitational lensing to focus at at similar relationship that you have described, but on a much larger scale.

The discussion I have seen is how the sun acts as a lens, not as a focal point of other gravity source. This is just a theory.



The Sun is bright because it's an active star.


Yes. But the sun does not operate in isolation of the rest of the galaxy and universe. If we did hit the delete button on everything else in the universe outside of our solar system, would our sun still work as it is designed? I am not sure if the sun is a representation of this focusing effect that is being looked for, but there should be some energy signature if this energy is highly focused in parts of space. Otherwise this lensing may just may be like a stormy sea with troughs and peeks all over the place.


reply to post by XPLodER
 




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.


A distinct possibility and there has been some great discussion and analysis going on. Some of the technicalities are getting a bit too deep for me but I am happy with what I have seen.




each sun micro lens is refracting and reflecting light creating the milky look.


I am not sure about the reflecting part, it give the impression that there is gravitational focusing of stars onto other stars to produce any slightly significant readings of this affect. After looking into this more I am on the fence about this one at the moment.


reply to post by kwakakev
 




Another problem is how does gravity affect light if a photon has no mass? I know it is commonly accepted for black holes to attract and bend light but how does it do it?


I just had an idea about why gravity can bend light when photons have no mass. Gravity bends space. I see this theory of gravitational lensing as a tool to map the gravity distribution of space.
edit on 17-8-2011 by kwakakev because: added visual spaces
edit on 17-8-2011 by kwakakev because: removed full stop



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I am starting to get a little confused here, does light have mass or not? Understanding the core fundamentals of light is going to make a big difference in building a strong foundation to get accurate results.

The photon is generally considered to have no mass, maybe we do not have scales sensitive enough to measure it yet or maybe it does not. At the moment I see the photon as a representation of a wave propagating through electrons, which do have mass. Light does act as a particle and a wave.

The Nichols Radiometer is one device that can measure the pressure of light or other electromagnetic radiation. This device is an upgrade of the Crookes Radiometer which appears to operate on convection currents and heat transfer as it does not work in a pure vacuum. The Nichols Radiometer also requires some slight air pressure to operate so it is still feasible that photons are massless entities that facilitate electromagnetic wave propagation through electrons.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by CLPrime
 


If we did hit the delete button on everything else in the universe outside of our solar system, would our sun still work as it is designed?


Yes, it would. Our Sun depends only on its own internal nuclear fusion.



I just had an idea about why gravity can bend light when photons have no mass. Gravity bends space. I see this theory of gravitational lensing as a tool to map the gravity distribution of space.


That's exactly the reason gravity bends light. Light follows a straight line through space, even if that space is curved, as in a gravitational potential.



I am starting to get a little confused here, does light have mass or not?


Light has no rest mass. When travelling at the speed of light (which it always does), light gains relativistic mass. This is a direct consequence of mass-energy equivalence: E=mc^2. In fact, being relativistic mass, the mass itself is inconsequential... what truly comes of this is the fact that photons have momentum: p = mc = E/c.

The concept of solar sails relies on the pressure light exerts on objects. That pressure is from the photon's momentum.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 






If we did hit the delete button on everything else in the universe outside of our solar system, would our sun still work as it is designed?

Yes, it would. Our Sun depends only on its own internal nuclear fusion.


So what is to stop our sun and solar system from spreading its guts out all over the place once all the external mass and energy is removed? There are some technical and ethical concerns in performing such an experiment so we do need to look for other ways to resolve this. As a thought experiment I see the result would be like placing a person into the vacuum of space when use to the pressure on earth, blood will start flowing out everywhere.



When travelling at the speed of light (which it always does), light gains relativistic mass.


This is interesting, apparently we cannot travel at the speed of light because our mass would be infinite. So a photon with no mass does not have this problem as any multiplying factors to 0 still equal 0, even infinity x 0 still equals 0. As the speed of light changes through different mediums is there a change in the value of this relativistic mass?

My current understanding of the propagation of light is that it is constant, not relative through space. Like in the same way sound waves travel through water but instead of each molecule bumping into the next molecule to send the sound wave, each electron bumps into the next electron through the photon to send the light wave.

By calling light relative I am getting the picture that if we turn the head lights on in our spaceship as we are travelling near the speed of light, this light beam would go faster than if we had our spaceship stopped. Is this right or wrong?



what truly comes of this is the fact that photons have momentum: p = mc = E/c.


Do you have any number value of the momentum in relation to a single photon? Does the frequency of the photon make a difference to this?



The concept of solar sails relies on the pressure light exerts on objects. That pressure is from the photon's momentum.


The concept of solar sails is based on the atomic and sub atomic composition of the solar winds, there is a lot more thrown out of the sun than photons. The light can cause the electrons and atoms to excite, but not yet convinced of the push.

On a side note, With that problem that you had earlier with running out of number length with some calculations, there is a Java class called BigDecimal and here is the source code www.docjar.com... . There is a processing overhead with this, but in trying to establish the relationships between the quantum and cosmic scales it is something worth considering.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

So what is to stop our sun and solar system from spreading its guts out all over the place once all the external mass and energy is removed? There are some technical and ethical concerns in performing such an experiment so we do need to look for other ways to resolve this. As a thought experiment I see the result would be like placing a person into the vacuum of space when use to the pressure on earth, blood will start flowing out everywhere.


Why would the external mass and energy keep the guts of the solar system contained?
Remember, the solar system is already in the vacuum of space.



This is interesting, apparently we cannot travel at the speed of light because our mass would be infinite. So a photon with no mass does not have this problem as any multiplying factors to 0 still equal 0, even infinity x 0 still equals 0. As the speed of light changes through different mediums is there a change in the value of this relativistic mass?


If we define "infinity" as 1/0, then (1/0) x 0 = 1. This is the infinity involved in mass dilation at the speed of light.
As I said, photons have mass because E = mc^2.
Well, actually, E^2 = (m^2)(c^4) + (p^2)(c^2). For a photon, E = hf. The photon's rest mass, m, is 0, so that leaves the right side of the first equation, or E = pc. So, hf = pc, and p = hf/c. This is the momentum of the photon.



My current understanding of the propagation of light is that it is constant, not relative through space. Like in the same way sound waves travel through water but instead of each molecule bumping into the next molecule to send the sound wave, each electron bumps into the next electron through the photon to send the light wave.


I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate with "each electron bumps into the next electron through the photon."



By calling light relative I am getting the picture that if we turn the head lights on in our spaceship as we are travelling near the speed of light, this light beam would go faster than if we had our spaceship stopped. Is this right or wrong?


Wrong. The speed of light is always constant in all reference frames. That's the basis of Relativity - to keep the speed of light constant. If anyone anywhere were ever to measure the speed of light to be any value other than exactly 299,792,458 m/s, then, for them, the light wave would be unable to propagate, and the wave would collapse. In order for light to travel, it must always, under all conditions, be measured at exactly 299,792,458 m/s.





what truly comes of this is the fact that photons have momentum: p = mc = E/c.


Do you have any number value of the momentum in relation to a single photon? Does the frequency of the photon make a difference to this?


p = hf/c. So, yes, momentum depends on frequency. Take, for example, a single photon of green light, which has a typical frequency of 5.66*10^14 hertz. p = (h = 6.626068*10^-34 m^2 kg/s)(5.66*10^14 hertz)/(2.99792458*10^8 m/s) = 1.25*10^-27 kg m/s. This is the momentum equivalent of a person moving a millimeter every 2 billion billion years.



The concept of solar sails is based on the atomic and sub atomic composition of the solar winds, there is a lot more thrown out of the sun than photons. The light can cause the electrons and atoms to excite, but not yet convinced of the push.


Solar wind is comprised predominantly of electrons and photons. The electrons impart momentum of their own, but so do the photons. Both of these are involved in the solar sails concept.

There's no real "push". It's the conservation of momentum that causes the solar sail to move. Photons have momentum, so, when they are absorbed by the solar sail, that momentum has to go somewhere...so it goes into the sail. This lends a small amount of velocity to the sail. With a high enough light intensity, and with the aid of the momentum given by the electrons in the solar wind, the imparted momentum/velocity becomes sufficient to move the sail at significant speeds.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by CLPrime
 


could the "holes" be from star formation prior to ignition?


That could certainly be the case, as well.

I think the general conclusion we can draw is that it's hard to know what we're looking at from a single image alone. As far as the entire observable universe is concerned: a picture may be worth a thousand words, but an extended study by multiple observatories and independent teams of cosmologists, astronomers, and astrophysicists is worth a thousand pictures.


you make a very astute point,
as we are using only optical signatures as our sample selection,
and no observations are going past the point of conjecture,
we should try to craft an observational "prediction" that could be studied and proven or falsafyed by observations and give the information to an observatory to see if we can prove a preasumed thesis,

i have been going over some information and beleive the foci may be very focused and the optical caustic to be very spread out,
if correct the foci would have lots of energy and not much detectable mass,(other than attracted gas)
the energy released at the foci would attract material to be consumed and energized by the foci
if the optical caustic (usually spread out close to lens) conincides in the same location as the foci a seconary effect could be observed through the lens on the reciprical direction creating a optical caustic on both sides.(recipricity of light)

the strange very high red shift of some of these quasars could be from the very high temperatures and pressures at the center of the foci imparting energy into the atoms of the gas hence the radio emmitions of the gas

we should put together a list of observable predictions.
xploder



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
One problem with the term 'Caustic'. As I currently understand it a caustic is a combination of refraction (bend) and reflection (bounce). I do accept that light is being refracted through the matter and gravity of space but do not see how it is being reflected. Here is a paper that links refraction with specific gravity to help with the equations involved www.minsocam.org...


there are two distinct effects going on that we are talking about,
the foci of a galaxy/helio compound lens, collecting and focusing light due to the gravitational lensing potential of the galaxy as a cumulitive and refractive indexes of the material and smaller micro helio lenses,
the model used can be read here on ats (gravitational microscoping)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the second effect is an optical caustic created from the rotation of the galaxy and the non focused remaining light that is scatterd and would be closer to the main bulk of the galaxy,

it gets interesting when the foci and casutic are to close together, and recipricity allows the cuastic to collect energy that would be reflected through the lens to the oposite caustic,
in this instence the caustic is greated by the rotational velocity of the host galaxy along the axis of rotation


Another problem is how does gravity affect light if a photon has no mass? I know it is commonly accepted for black holes to attract and bend light but how does it do it?


in this instence gravity effects the medium density of the material that light travelks through and alters refractivity rather than bends space time, as gravity increases so to does the refractivity of the medium. the stronger the gravity the denser the area is the more light is "refracted". when a series of different refractivty lenses are applied along a common focal axis a compound lens is created, think optical lens theory with a lens that gets stronger the closer to the center you get."progresive" to center of mass due to optical denstiy increase, the individual micro lenses or helio bubble lenses act like a series of smaller mirrors glued to a satalite dish, and the over all lens (galaxy) helps to collect and focus all light through the many smaller lenses in a compound nature.


As I see it, gravity is not constant in space. The closer the light gets to suns, black holes, galaxies and such the more it bends. The elemental composition of the space will also affect the refractive index. To build a map of all the gravity and matter refractions I recommend to start local and work your way out.


very interesting idea...
that link will prove useful i thank you



For these hot spots there needs to be a strong gravitational sink to focus all the light into one point, a black hole is the only shape that currently makes sense to me as it is able to suck in light that has been polarized for other directions if they get too close. This expands the energy potential from the insignificant number CLPrime came up with in his first calculations by 360 degrees x 360 degrees x 360 degrees.


the current model for foci is using a cluster of enormous size as the scale should make finding the optical signatures a bit easyer, i contend that we should be able to find smaller individual galaxies showing the same no mass but high energy charictoristics foci along the axis or rotation.


The idea of using the sun as a lens just made my head explode, is that why it is so bright to look at? It is drawing and focusing the combined light / energy of the universe?


if you were to imagine being outside of the sloar bubble looking in i contend that the sun would look brighter and larger than its physical scale, and light from behind the solar bubble can be refracted generally by the helio lense and cumulitivly by the larger galaxy lens.

xploder
edit on 17-8-2011 by XPLodER because: add more
edit on 17-8-2011 by XPLodER because: brackets



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
I am starting to get a little confused here, does light have mass or not? Understanding the core fundamentals of light is going to make a big difference in building a strong foundation to get accurate results.


weather you use eistienian gravity warping space time or pregresive gravity density optics the out comes are remakably similar, so the mass of the photon is not really the problem at the moment



The photon is generally considered to have no mass, maybe we do not have scales sensitive enough to measure it yet or maybe it does not. At the moment I see the photon as a representation of a wave propagating through electrons, which do have mass. Light does act as a particle and a wave.


i think its important not to devorce a light particle and the medium density light is travelling through, remember photons travel from atom to atom in a medium and the distence between the atoms and the inherant energy within the atom can change the transmition charictoristics in a given gravity.
i would use the example of the quantium tunneling of light.




The Nichols Radiometer is one device that can measure the pressure of light or other electromagnetic radiation. This device is an upgrade of the Crookes Radiometer which appears to operate on convection currents and heat transfer as it does not work in a pure vacuum. The Nichols Radiometer also requires some slight air pressure to operate so it is still feasible that photons are massless entities that facilitate electromagnetic wave propagation through electrons.


very interesting to know thanks K

xploder



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 



I am not sure about the reflecting part, it give the impression that there is gravitational focusing of stars onto other stars to produce any slightly significant readings of this affect. After looking into this more I am on the fence about this one at the moment.


a a shallow angle of incidence to the micro helio bubbles the rays bounce or reflect of the outter surface of the lens without pentrating the "bubble" this difuse emition radiates back into the medium.

xploder



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 




Why would the external mass and energy keep the guts of the solar system contained? Remember, the solar system is already in the vacuum of space.


Some discussion with Exploder on other threads got me onto this possibility in trying to understand dark matter and the galaxy. As far as I am aware, science has not yet made a perfect vacuum as sub atomic matter continues to pop in and out of existence. There are also gravity and many other forms of energy that fill this void. The fact that we can see other stars and our sun rotates around the galaxy with many others proves this.

In removing the rest of the universe apart from our solar system this is what I imagine. The heliosphere is the first to crack and dissipated exploding out into this new absolute void. The planetary orbits will wildly expand as the momentum of their movement sends them on a straight instead of a curved path through space. The gravity on these planets will also breakdown flinging everything off due to the centrifugal force of their spin. The sun will explode, maybe not instantly or quickly but it would not be able to sustain the gravitational breakdown as it spreads. After time the solar system will spread out in all directions into this new void due to diffusion. Once things can no longer breakdown any more the life will start to rebuild.



Well, actually, E^2 = (m^2)(c^4) + (p^2)(c^2). For a photon, E = hf. The photon's rest mass, m, is 0, so that leaves the right side of the first equation, or E = pc. So, hf = pc, and p = hf/c. This is the momentum of the photon.


does p = density and hf = magnetic field strength?



I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate with "each electron bumps into the next electron through the photon."


Just trying to picture exactly what happens on the quantum level. A strong foundation on the principles and operation of light helps when multiplying this factor onto the cosmic stage.



Wrong. The speed of light is always constant in all reference frames.


Cool, that is what I was thinking but just wanted to check.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
First, a disclaimer:
I've just been woken up at 5:15 in the morning by a house-guest who can't seem to stay in her bedroom for some inexplicable reason and who insists on running the tap and playing with the microwave in the room behind me, so excuse me if I seem a little angry with this reply. I'm not sure if it will come across that way or not, since I haven't written it yet, but just warning you...this is coming from a very psychologically disturbed person at the moment. My patience may be a little short at the moment.
Now, with that said....


Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by CLPrime
 


In removing the rest of the universe apart from our solar system this is what I imagine. The heliosphere is the first to crack and dissipated exploding out into this new absolute void. The planetary orbits will wildly expand as the momentum of their movement sends them on a straight instead of a curved path through space. The gravity on these planets will also breakdown flinging everything off due to the centrifugal force of their spin. The sun will explode, maybe not instantly or quickly but it would not be able to sustain the gravitational breakdown as it spreads. After time the solar system will spread out in all directions into this new void due to diffusion. Once things can no longer breakdown any more the life will start to rebuild.


No. Not even a little bit. This isn't how things work at that level. If everything external to the solar system was removed, the solar system would continue on as normal, because its stability doesn't depend on anything outside it. It's stability depends only on its own internal gravity.



does p = density and hf = magnetic field strength?


p is momentum
h is planck's constant and f is frequency
These are very basic Modern Physics equations.




I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate with "each electron bumps into the next electron through the photon."


Just trying to picture exactly what happens on the quantum level. A strong foundation on the principles and operation of light helps when multiplying this factor onto the cosmic stage.


At the quantum level, an excited electron collapses to a lower energy level and emits a photon. The energy of that photon is equal to the energy difference in the electron's new and old energy levels, and is proportional to the photons's frequency (again, E = hf). That frequency, we see as colour (in visible light... beyond the visible light range, we don't see it at all).
You might say, the photon isn't really travelling... the photon just represents the basic division of the energy generated by the EM field. This EM field is self-sustained by an electric field and a magnetic field moving at a very specific speed (299,792,458 m/s, as demanded by Maxwell's equations) as measured by all observers in all reference frames.
Then, the photon encounters another electron and excites it, causing it to jump to a higher energy level.
And the process begins again.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 




No. Not even a little bit. This isn't how things work at that level. If everything external to the solar system was removed, the solar system would continue on as normal, because its stability doesn't depend on anything outside it. It's stability depends only on its own internal gravity.


I admit I may be way off in my imagination of the repercussions, but to say there is no effect is wrong as well. The solar system can be viewed like a cell, the heliosphere is the cell wall, the sun is the nucleus and the planets are its functions in a very rough analogy. If you take that cell out of its environment it will die as it can no longer feed and dispose of its waste in the way it is designed. When looking inside the cell it is easy to say that it is the RNA and other proteins doing all the work, but there are greater dependencies going on with energy transfer.

Let's try this another way, what would happen to the galaxy if we where to delete this solar system? The nearby solar systems would move in to fill up the gap and find gravitational equilibrium with their neighbours again. This adjustment in solar positions will extend throughout the whole galaxy and get smaller the further away it goes. I would not be surprised for the whole universe to feel this effect in at least some very minor way.

I do agree with your explanation of light. Now for the other basic fundamental related to this lensing theory, gravity. There is a direct relationship with mass, but unfortunately Einstein never go to publish his unified theory. Any ideas?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I admit I may be way off in my imagination of the repercussions, but to say there is no effect is wrong as well. The solar system can be viewed like a cell, the heliosphere is the cell wall, the sun is the nucleus and the planets are its functions in a very rough analogy. If you take that cell out of its environment it will die as it can no longer feed and dispose of its waste in the way it is designed. When looking inside the cell it is easy to say that it is the RNA and other proteins doing all the work, but there are greater dependencies going on with energy transfer.


That's not a valid representation. The cell wall contains the contents of the cell... the heliosphere serves no such function. Gravity is what holds the solar system together, and there is no analogous cell structure.
There's also no influx of anything that the solar system feeds on. And what sort of waste does the solar system dispose of?
There is no similarity between the two whatsoever, so you can't draw conclusions about one from the other.



Let's try this another way, what would happen to the galaxy if we where to delete this solar system? The nearby solar systems would move in to fill up the gap and find gravitational equilibrium with their neighbours again. This adjustment in solar positions will extend throughout the whole galaxy and get smaller the further away it goes. I would not be surprised for the whole universe to feel this effect in at least some very minor way.


Nothing of the sort would happen. The solar system could be deleted without any effect whatsoever. In fact, if anything, nearby objects may move further away, because of the reduction in the regional gravitational potential.
You seem to have an inaccurate image of the universe and its mass distribution. You're treating it like a gas, which works to keep equilibrium by dissipating dense areas and filling thin areas. The universe doesn't work that way. To say that deleting the solar system would cause surrounding matter to flow in to fill the void means we should also expect the contents of a living room to shift to fill the void left by taking the TV out.



I do agree with your explanation of light. Now for the other basic fundamental related to this lensing theory, gravity. There is a direct relationship with mass, but unfortunately Einstein never go to publish his unified theory. Any ideas?


That's good, because that's the current explanation of light.
Now, what, exactly, do you mean by gravity and the direct relationship with mass?
edit on 18-8-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
62
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join