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.
The team used gravitational lensing to measure the distances light traveled from a bright, active galaxy to the earth along different paths. By understanding the time it took to travel along each path and the effective speeds involved, researchers could infer not just how far away the galaxy lie but also the overall scale of the universe and some details of its expansion.
Originally posted by scapers2u
Im not sure what you mean by gravity lenses, how do those even work? What do they do? And when did we get such a telescope?
Originally posted by Cyanhide
reply to post by VonDoomen
And yet a clear picture of our moon is huge challenge...
Originally posted by twinmommy38
"By understanding the time it took to travel along each path and the effective speeds involved"
If they are measuring light, and light is constant at c , what is the "effective speeds involved" for?
Do they mean that different times for identical changes to show in the multiple images, showing that one "path" was longer than the others? Or that light went slower/faster?
Originally posted by sbctinfantry
I've posed this question many times, in many different forms. I believe I even asked you about it in one of your threads. My summation, if you forgot, is that aside from the fact that everything we experience is inside our brain, and not reality, we can never really truly measure distance except by what we percieve as the distance travelled by light.
Knowing this, and knowing that light travels at different speeds through the universe (in some places much like a super highway, and others like heavy traffic), is it even logical to use light as a measure of distance? Is it even logical to assume there is such a thing as distance at all?
For me, this only helps confirm my belief that we never left the singularity, the big bang is a clever outlet of our imagination, and everything in what we percieve as the universe is located at the same (for lack of a better descriptive term) point.
This explains quantum mechanics, spooky action at a distance (because there is no real distance, everything can operate like a superfluid), and pretty much every question that science has yet to answer about the universe.
More to the point, how can we know how far the nearest galaxy is to the Milky Way if we can't trust our eyes, instruments or even light? If we discard light as our tool for measurement, then everything is effectively at the same place at the same time.
Past, Present and Future - All matter is energy condensed, vibrating and can become like a superfluid.
Thanks for helping me clarify my ideas with these bits of info.
Originally posted by Insomniac
reply to post by XPLodER
It's not that light moves at different speeds through gravity fields, it's that light gets bent around gravity. If an object was directly behind a galaxy in direct line of sight, then the bent photons would appear to us to arrive at the same time. If the object was offset, then the photons moving around the galaxy would be travelling different distances - One lensed image for example would have a shorter journey than the other. The speed of light is a constant, all that's changing is distance travelled.
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.
Originally posted by XPLodER
so if the lense has an optical component and a gravity component then refractive and gravity become a factor in the time light would take,
one way of understanding the problem is einstein said light still travels at a constant and that space time is warped,
in this case there is a distent object with two vantage points,
one is direct line of sight,
the other is through the lens to the object,
the distant object flashes a pulse of light,
the line of sight through the lens "sees" the pulse before the direct line of sight,
one side of the lens shows the pulse before the oposite side of the lens,
so is distence shorter through the lens ?
if einstien was correct both should "pulse" together,
but that is not what we observe
Originally posted by Cyanhide
reply to post by VonDoomen
And yet a clear picture of our moon is huge challenge...
Originally posted by Insomniac
Originally posted by XPLodER
so if the lense has an optical component and a gravity component then refractive and gravity become a factor in the time light would take,
one way of understanding the problem is einstein said light still travels at a constant and that space time is warped,
in this case there is a distent object with two vantage points,
one is direct line of sight,
the other is through the lens to the object,
the distant object flashes a pulse of light,
the line of sight through the lens "sees" the pulse before the direct line of sight,
one side of the lens shows the pulse before the oposite side of the lens,
so is distence shorter through the lens ?
if einstien was correct both should "pulse" together,
but that is not what we observe
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I didn't explain myself terribly well! I wasn't trying to suggest that the object was in direct line of sight, I meant that the object would be behind the lensing galaxy, but the image (I said object - oops!) would be offset to one side or the other which would result in one collection of photons taking longer than the other as they've travelled further around the lensing galaxy.
This link explains it far better than me! I really should stop posting at 5 in the morning!
Universe Today