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.

 

A Trillion Space Telescopes Unlock Mysteries of the Universe

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
when a shock discovery that some infrared light sources were a signature for gravitational lensing was proven with "optical" and infrared telescopes, the science of the very distent got very interesting.




the time to discover a gravitational lens was massive and the feild of view covered with candidates for further time consuming study.
by finding the "marker" for gravitational lensing (sub MM and infrared light) we can now just carry out a census of the light in these ranges and cut the detection times down to days not months.




using galaxies as "see through" lenses was not anticipated till recently and the image can be refracted into 1, 2 , 4 or more images and the images are from galaxies we would not normally see because of there great distence to us.






but this new detection method along with the shear number of posable lenses is proving to be a real tool for measuring our universe.



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.


source
these lenses provide us with the tools to study objects very far away,
but also the ability to see in the large scale the structure of the universe
we can also make very precice measurements with time/distence and study how light travels different paths at different speeds,

this also begs the question if we are inside a "galaxy lens" is it distorting our distence perspective?






xploder
edit on 7-9-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by scapers2u
 


The gravity of a massive object can "bend" light around it.
So by understanding how this process works, scientist can use the "gravitational lense" to see objects behind a galaxy, by piecing together the light that has been "bent" in our direction.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by scapers2u
 


An excellent discussion on Gravitational Lensing is found in this thread:

new gravitational lensing science opens up the universe

Best regards,
Z



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by scapers2u
 


a gravity lens can be many different thing,

the main idea is that gravity can "collect" or "distort" images much like a lens,

in this instence a single galaxy and its gravity combine to make a "space based" telescope,
or a giant magnifying glass in space.



made from a galaxy




this combination of optical thickness and gravity make the galaxy act like a telescope to any thing behind it along the galaxies line of site

in the next image we can see the far away galaxy in the far infrared spectrum (wave size) because of the lens infront of it (unseen at this wave length) and the image is "split" into four images of the original galaxy





that means we can see things very far away and study them

xploder

edit on 7-9-2011 by XPLodER because: add pic



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


And yet a clear picture of our moon is huge challenge...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

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?



Gravitational lensing is an EFFECT, not a thing. It is essintially the way light is bent due to the gravity of a object, like a galaxy. Just as light is bent in a telescope. So the "trillions of telescopes the OP was refering to , are the trillions of galaxys that are out there.


Cool find OP S&F for you.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
"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?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyanhide
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


And yet a clear picture of our moon is huge challenge...


Conventional lenses are governed by the physics of optics, gravitational lenses are governed by the physics of gravity. Neither help with getting the type of photograph you're after.

Anyway back to the thread: Excellent post OP - S&F!
Gravitational lensing proves Einstein was correct regarding the warping effects of gravity on space.
edit on 7/9/11 by Insomniac because: typo



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

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?


Yes, light moves at different speeds in different mediums. Mind blowing, isn't it? How do you know how far away anything is now? How do you know there is a distance between you and anything, in reality, at all?




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


Dear sbctinfantry

How about the idea that we are all just part of a future computer game.
This idea comes from a US Boffin so do not shoot me.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

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.


i do remember you pointing this out to me in a previous thread,
you are very astute my friend

and if light can take longer and shorter paths through gravity feilds,
how can we use light to measure distence?
the other point is if optical density can lens objects how many are lensed and how does that change how far they are from us

einstein was right up to a point,
but he never predicted density lensing


star 4 u my friend
xploder



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
One of my good friends is an astrophysicist who specializes in studying quasars via gravitational lensing. He showed me some great pictures of quasar images that were lensed around a foreground galaxy. In one case the quasar behind the galaxy appeared as four different patches of light around its edge - it looked like four objects, but all were really images of the same object bent around the galaxy. Really interesting stuff.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

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.


link to source

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

xploder
edit on 7-9-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

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



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyanhide
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


And yet a clear picture of our moon is huge challenge...


Yes becauce we are only supose to see what their say what is their

ho look at these new moon picture of the landing HO by the way it a no fly zone as of next month



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Insomniac
 


that makes more sence
lol
image insteed of object makes a huge difference in the sentence lol

one thing to remember about light,

one photon is like a snow flake,
doesnt act like an avalance



xploder



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

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


Light travels at 38 MPH through super cooled sodium. You mean to tell me that there isn't a billion different kinds of configurations of varying temperature, matter and undiscovered happenstance? How does light travel through the void of space? Through dark matter? Through star dust of differing properties?

Science is a wonderful tool, but once you start thinking of it in absolutes you become ignorant and biased. Stay skeptical, not of aliens, but of your accepted perception of reality through any medium or instrument.

Edit :

So, my point? If you can't trust light, it is not a tool for measurement. If it is not a tool for measurement, what is? I say nothing, in reality. Though we can enjoy our delusions of grandeur and believe that we can measure infinity, I would like to think that we are the infinite. I could be wrong, but I'm holding on to a belief, not a formula or constant, and beliefs are more flexible.
edit on 2011/9/8 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join