It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


Bubble Nova (hubble knew no bubbles)

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:19 PM
there has been alot of cosmology that relies on the type 1A super nova,

in fact the theory of the expansion of the universe, revolves around precise observations of this class of super nova (star explosion). hubble noticed that type 1A super nova could be used as a "standard candle" (predictable brightness) and that this could be used for distence measurements. later closer to now scientists found that this type of explosion was acually taking longer in the distent past. (light takes time to travel to us so we see what was there, not what is there "now".

here is an artistic interpretation of a super nova explosion

a small white star "stripps" gas from a "normal star" until explosion (it gets complicated)
but needless to say this creates one hell of an explosion.

what we didnt know back then was stars have "bubbles" around them,

and these bubbles can have interesting properties when optical physics laws and gravitational laws are observed,
the optical properties and gravitational foces combine to provide a "bubble lens"

artistic image used

where the optical properties of the "bubble" under gravity increase the image of the star inside the bubble and project the "image" of the star onto the outter most surface of the bubble.

this next image is a glass sphere under a microscope on a surface, the glass sphere increses magnification

this is called Xploders Gravitational Microscoping or just (GM)


this is where things get interesting,

if a super nova is an explosion inside an "optical bubble",
what happens to the bubble and image of the star under the conditions of type 1A Nova explosion?

well if there was a foce acting inside the bubble (explosion) then the bubble should increase in size.
so what happens to the image of the star on the bubble surface if the star suddenly explodes and "inflates the bubble?

here is some "NEW" information on the bubbles in the bubble around our star,

when the area of the bubble increases, it increases magnification of the explosion and as the "bubble wall" travels away from the star explosion,

at this point i will use an anollogy
put a very large clock on earth,
train a telescope on it and travel away from the earth at half light speed (the speed of the explosion),
the clock (if you could still see it) would be "observed" to slow down.

back to the super nova,
as the "bubble lens" travels away from the star a similar effect to the clock is observered,
time for an observer of the contents of the nova bubble "slows down" like the image of the clock on earth,

these bubbles can optically interact with our own galaxy bubble and star bubble (like two lenses in a telescope),
and the "distence" between these "bubble lenses" becomes a factor in the time distorting nature of the inflation of the nova bubble,
this means the further away from us the "slower" the explosion "looks" to take place,
because the distence between the two lenses is a factor in how these "bubble" lenses interact,
the further away from us they are the "slower" the explosion "observed.

in this way i can explain the fact that novas are "observed" to occour slower, the further away from us they are

but this would mean that expansion of the universe is an optical illusion.

i would very much like others opinion on this revelation,

edit on 22-8-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling

edit on 22-8-2011 by XPLodER because: add picture

edit on 22-8-2011 by XPLodER because: fix utube

edit on 22-8-2011 by XPLodER because: correction

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:34 PM
Doesn't the trig formula: base = radius divided by tan(angle) used on the novas remaining shells, which gives a precise distance, coincide exactly with the observed distance using standard modeling for supernovas by lightspeed calculations?

I don't grasp how such an enormous acceleration could occur and not show as a difference in the two methods of testing.

I am sure that I am just confused...


posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by twinmommy38

yes it does

the point is not the area change,
its the effect of the change on the "image" of the star as the area increases,

if we give the star bubble a refractive index, and an optical "prescription",
that "prescription" would change with area and refractive changes,

as the lens diameter increased the optical focal point would change from center of mass,
the expanding lens moves away from the center of mass but the outward moving gas is getting closer to the new focal point,

a "sliding" focal point or moving focal point would have the effect of slowing down "obserable" time inside the lens

am i answering your question or did i miss understand?


edit on 22-8-2011 by XPLodER because: edit to add i will look up your terrms lol

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

Nope, you got it exactly

Thank You!

I overlooked that the lensing effect would encompass the entire system evenly, not just locally to the event and not be affecting the shells as well. As the matter and mass of the star was changed and not destroyed then the bubble effect would be constant regardless of which method were used.

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:17 PM

I figured if Hubble can colorize pictures,
then why not try it out.

Gravitational Magnification.
I think you may have found some.

David Grouchy

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by davidgrouchy

thanks david

i do think this validates xploders gravitational microscoping (GM)

as does this picture,

and this has implications on type 1A super nova
david if you were here i would shout you a beer, it has been a long road finding proof of my reasearch,
and i find it very encouraging you applaud my theories and work,

sometimes i feel like a heritic and then you remind me why i do this,
the beautiful feeling of science achivement, even without fame or recognition for my work i feel happy that you understand my vision and your encouragement means alot to me

i feel like a kid at christmas who has just received everything he has always wanted,
in this case it is to contribute to a greater understanding of the universe,

einstein once predicted the optical phenomonon of gravitational lensing by our star,(GL)
i have predicted the optical density lensing of a galaxy (DL)
and (i think) this is "optical" confirmation of gravitational microscoping,(GM)

im on a roll huh?

another confirmation i am looking for is the focal point for gravity lenses and a "lazer" effect imparted from gravity and light interaction of galaxies and their helio lenses.

as i have said if you were here i would buy you a beer,
i hope to someday meet and chat with you face to face over your fav beer


posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by XPLodER

Nice! Thanks for explaining it in a way I could grasp it.

Question: Very recently I viewed a NASA-ordained artist's rendition of our Sun's heliosphere. It looked like the 'comet version,' meaning elongated, as opposed to spherical as you've shown the new understanding to be. So NASA was wrong? *gasp* I wouldn't be surprised! But just asking for clarification.

Observation: Dang if one of your pics doesn't look just like molecules! I've always felt that our planets revolving around the Sun was a fractal version of an atom. Now I see your pic of several 'bubble stars' (atoms) looking bonded together, and I'm seeing cosmic molecules. What if? Just oh what if?

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:14 PM
I cant believe it. How great our universe is with all these wonderfull things like super novas, star systems, galaxies, comets, etc. It looks so cool.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by twinmommy38
reply to post by XPLodER

Nope, you got it exactly

Thank You!

I overlooked that the lensing effect would encompass the entire system evenly, not just locally to the event and not be affecting the shells as well. As the matter and mass of the star was changed and not destroyed then the bubble effect would be constant regardless of which method were used.

it puts a smile on my face

edit on 23-8-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:40 PM
here is an article that seems to imply i was on the right path with the dynamics of supernova observations

link to source

The principle of least time

As Annila explains, when a ray of light travels from a distant star to an observer’s telescope, it travels along the path that takes the least amount of time. This well-known physics principle is called Fermat’s principle or the principle of least time. Importantly, the quickest path is not always the straight path. Deviations from a straight path occur when light propagates through media of varying energy densities, such as when light bends due to refraction as it travels through a glass prism.

Not a one-trick pony

While the concept of light’s least-time path seems to be capable of explaining the supernovae data in agreement with the rest of our observations of the universe, Annila notes that it would be even more appealing if this one theoretical concept could solve a few problems at the same time. And it may – Annila shows that, when gravitational lensing is analyzed with this concept, it does not require dark matter to explain the results.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that massive objects, such as galaxies, cause light to bend due to the way their gravity distorts spacetime, and scientists have observed that this is exactly what happens. The problem is that the deflection seems to be larger than what all of the known (luminous) matter can account for, prompting researchers to investigate the possibility of dark (nonluminous) matter.

However, when Annila used Maupertuis’ principle of least action to analyze how much a galaxy of a certain mass should deflect passing light, he calculated the total deflection to be about five times larger than the value given by general relativity. In other words, the observed deflections require less mass than previously thought, and it can be entirely accounted for by the known matter in galaxies.

“General relativity in terms of Einstein’s field equations is a mathematical model of the universe, whereas we need the physical account of the evolving universe provided by Maupertuis’ principle of least action,” he said. “Progress by patching may appear appealing, but it will easily become inconsistent by resorting to ad hoc accretions. Bertrand Russell is completely to the point about the contemporary tenet when saying that ‘all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation,’ but fundamentally, any sophisticated modeling is secondary to comprehending the simple principle of how nature works

same source


new topics

top topics


log in