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.

 

"gravitational redshift" in new galaxy cluster study results.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
for many years i have been resurching gravity lenses and their optical implications for non doppler and non cosmological redshift.
it is widly beleived that light shifts in equal amounts as it enteres and transitions a high gravity environment.
many times i have stated that there is ultimatly more shift in the red direction than blue.
this means that if light travels through a gravitational lense (density gravitational lense) like an individual galaxy lense, then light would be reqiuired to follow conservation of energy laws.
there are a few things to take into account, gravity and its relitivistic effects on light, but also there is optical density to take into account.

so while this finding can be said to "confirm" general relivity (also required with DL) the result is being shown as a relitivistic only finding.

the optical density model also "predicts" the gravitationally induced redshift outcome but not from gravity alone.
its almost like we are pretending that gravity does not effect the density of material around the source of gravity.

gravity increses the "density" of space where the mass is ie not warped but more densly packed with optical media. that media allows the atom to atom interaction with the photon at an atomic scale, and the "distence" between the atoms collecting and emitting photons has an effect on the transition of photons through the media.

so if we take into account gravitys effect on the density of optical media we get the same results as claimed as proof of general relitivity by the following article.

so if the two models can be shown to give the same results how can one model claim that this is proof in favour of the GR model?

do we not accept that space is not "empty" and space around mass is even less "empty" and that within strong gravitational feilds space is "packed" with material that has optical properties?

using optical physics and conservation of energy laws the exact same result can be shown.
a group of galaxies in a cluster (gravitationally bound) would also "attract" a denser medium "between" the galaxies due to the gravitational influence. this medium would have to conform with optical physics laws and conservation of energy.

why is it that we see more in the distant universe when we have forground objects?
why is the line of sight to alot of distent galaxies "accross" the foreground galaxies?
why is the optical properties of "denser" time space (optically denser) not implicated as part of the gravitational lensing dynamic?

i find einstiens GR a very powerful tool that will always have relevence to the scales we are talking about,
but light is transmitted atom to atom and to over look this very important point means that light or photons are "ONLY" effected by gravity and not by the atom to atom interaction of the photon.

where is the optical love?
how can we ignore the optical while only looking at the gravitational?

the intersting thing is optical physics and medium density refraction give the same results as the GR predictions the difference now is that we "know" space is not empty and gravity effects how densly packed the atoms are which influences refractivity and therfore lensing

i would love for some feed back on this issiue
can i claim that this result also supports density lensing because imho it can


The Copenhagen team was looking specifically at redshift, where the wavelength of distant galaxies shifts toward the red with increasing distance. Redshift has been used to tell us much about how the universe has expanded since the light being studied left its original source. Normally we think of the redshift being the result of the changing distance between the distant light source and ourselves as we both move through space. This is the familiar Doppler shift, and it could be either a redshift or, if the objects are approaching each other, a blueshift.

But another kind of redshift can come into play when space itself is expanding. Here the distance between the distant light source and ourselves is also increasing, but because of its nature, we call this a cosmological redshift rather than a Doppler shift. Gravity can also cause a redshift, as light emitted by a massive object is affected by the gravity of the object. The loss of energy from emitted photons shows up as a redshift commonly called a gravitational redshift.


source

xploder






edit on 28-9-2011 by XPLodER because: add exterior content and links




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
You won't get a counter argument from me. Seems like science is catching up to your research and conclusions.

My intuition (some background in science) lead me to postulate that perhaps it is a natural property of light just to shift to the red over long periods of time and/or vast distances of space. We are talking billions of years/light years. So naturally the further back we look, the more exaggerative the red shift.

I like your ideas too however, because it's a little more provable.
edit on 9/28/2011 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
Ever hurd of spell check?


while i would normally be offended by your comments i will agree that my spelling is bad
my logic is good and if all you got from reading this was the spelling mistakes then this article is not for you
move along to better spelt threads where they discuss other topics.
the subject matter is what is important not my dislexia
lol

xploder



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Cryptonomicon
 


i have read many articles about "tired light" or the tendencies for light to "degrade" over large time and distence scales.
recently individual gravitational lensing releases from NASA have shown that most of the high redshift objects we observe are only visable because of lensing and are all very high red shift.

so if objects in the very distent past are being shifted because of lensing then we could asume that closer objects are also being shifted by lensing.

we now know we have a bubble around our helio sphere and that our galaxy has two boundries around it.
so if each lense boundry has a cost to transitoin (conservation of energy laws) then we are acually looking at optically induced redshift "due" to gravity increasing the density of atoms and decreasing the "distence" between the atoms which effects the transition costs of light traveling through a gravitational field

optical physics cannot explain the situation without GR but how can GR explain the situation without optical physics implications?

xploder



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Within the last few years background "radiation" matched to galactic clusters indicated flow in one direction. This Universe heads towards an open available spot... Another recreation of the Universe.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Riiiight. What if every single thread written witout spell checK? Would you still visit the site and consider it respectable and credible?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
i do not wish to deviate from the op
please make comments on the op
thanks xp
edit on 28-9-2011 by XPLodER because: remove rant



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Within the last few years background "radiation" matched to galactic clusters indicated flow in one direction. This Universe heads towards an open available spot... Another recreation of the Universe.


very interesting information that i was unaware of thank you,
i have the personal theory that our universe and another universe (contradiction i know) collided and one "uni bubble" consumed another uni bubble and this explains dark flow and the movement we observe

imho

xploder



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Within the last few years background "radiation" matched to galactic clusters indicated flow in one direction. This Universe heads towards an open available spot... Another recreation of the Universe.


very interesting information that i was unaware of thank you,
i have the personal theory that our universe and another universe (contradiction i know) collided and one "uni bubble" consumed another uni bubble and this explains dark flow and the movement we observe

imho

xploder


The movement we experience as mass is static... The equivalent of a creek pushing a dead leaf. No collision or explosion had to take place. Matter is guided by wave function. It's obvious matter gets closer and closer to its counterpart, but again... It's all the same stream.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Riiiight. What if every single thread written witout spell checK? Would you still visit the site and consider it respectable and credible?


witout?? the Irony is almost palpable



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Maybe I'm not getting it clearly, but it seems to me that once universal expansion is taken into account, gravitational lensing should produce equal amounts of both red and blue shifts. Not all gravity perturbations force a photon along a vector away from the viewer. If it's being refracted through the lens, it should statistically show up as moving in equal measure both towards and away from the viewer, since it is not relying on any kind of internal expansion to push the relative movement constantly outward.

But I suppose I'm stating the obvious.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


i would like to discuss magneto hydrodynamics,
if two bodes are moving at high speed in the same direction at the same speed in a magneto-hydro dynamic medium then we would have to take into account the "material" flowing between the bodies.
if the distence between the moving bodies was "constrictive" to the hydro dynamic flow "between" the bodies an interesting thing happens, a "low" pressure area forms between the objects and this forces the objects into an interacting pair. or put another way the "density" of "space" moving between the bodies creates a magneto-hydrodynamic interaction creating a low pressure area directly between the bodies.

this interaction has more to do with size/diameter and medium density/velocity than mass or due to atomic effects.

this is why "local" gravity is different to cosmological gravity scales,
ie the density of the mediums is different giving different amounts of magneto-hydrodynamic effects

imho

xploder



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Maybe I'm not getting it clearly, but it seems to me that once universal expansion is taken into account, gravitational lensing should produce equal amounts of both red and blue shifts. Not all gravity perturbations force a photon along a vector away from the viewer. If it's being refracted through the lens, it should statistically show up as moving in equal measure both towards and away from the viewer, since it is not relying on any kind of internal expansion to push the relative movement constantly outward.

But I suppose I'm stating the obvious.


an article i recently read is about using agtive galaxy nuclus galaxies as a "new" standard candle to replace type 1a super nova.
i do beleive this will change opinion on "expansion" and the size of the universe.

it was always asumed that even amounts of shift would occour while transitioning a gravitational lens,
but this was using a GR only model of the interaction and did not take into account the optical implications of transitioning the lense boundary.

interestingly there have recently been major advancements in the optical field to do with lense boundary interactions that show there is a more dynamic process occouring at the boundary than was previously suspected.

when consevation laws are observed and we take into account the effect of frequency and amplitude changes through these bounaries there is a cost,

this means that the shift is always in one direction "more" than the other,
ie redshift is the cost to transition both the "boundaries" as the light first enteres then leaves the lens.

AGN the new standard candle

i would expect to find that after looking at AGN galaxies that the "amount" of expansion will change signifigantly
as there has been recent evidence that type 1a supernova are not as "standard" as they seem,
and this has the effect of changing the expansion dynamic.

i would like to "guess" that expansion is not an effect of empty space,
it is an optically induced illusion due to the lensing interaction between our galaxy and the supernova galaxy lens.

a space based telscope comprised from our helio/galaxy lensets and the galaxy/nova lensets "factoring" together to distort the "apparent" expansion due to shifting lensing interactions

xploder

xploder



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Tighter wavelengths denote a higher saturation of energy. The example you cite would draft or perhaps punch a slight pathway allowing the case for slower wave function to occur. I'll assume for now this is what you've referenced. In what context though?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Tighter wavelengths denote a higher saturation of energy. The example you cite would draft or perhaps punch a slight pathway allowing the case for slower wave function to occur. I'll assume for now this is what you've referenced. In what context though?


consevation of energy laws state that energy cannot be created or distroyed,
so when light waves are traveling in intergalactic space (use a vacum for now)
and they encounter a lens (higher concentration of atoms per area) the speed of the wave has to change to acount for the new medium (light travels faster in a vacum) so the light has to change amplitude and wavelength from the vacum to the new medium density to retain the same energy at the new speed.
this is a progressive change and the closer to the source of gravity the more the atoms are "grouped" together or the "closer" to each other the atoms are (increasing gravity) the slower the speed of travel becomes and the more the change in wavelength and amplitude must be to "account" for the speed of travel in the new (more dense) medium.

when we look at boundaries and the "reflective" and refractive nature of the boundaries we can say that some energy is required just to cross between the mediums (light from vacum into lens) and angle of incidence to the lens has an effect on the reflected value or reflected light (not all the light gets through) this is due to quantium tunneling effects in the new medium.

the result is a small loss due to refractive index and relfectivity inherant in the medium that comprises the lens.
considering the costs to transition and the change in medium density the overall effect would be a very small loss of overall energy and as the light leaves the lens it "cannot" achive the same speed in the vacum so its wavelength and amplitude are less than before entry.

this is how i see it happening due to density/refractivity using GR

xploder



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
There must be Einstein fans that like gravity light shifts but what happened to
old school Doppler Red and Blue shift for light due to the object speed.
Gravity being so week under laboratory conditions no one can verify any huge
gravity theory. Certain wave motions in have demonstrated mass attraction and
repulsion. There is only to apply that to the fine matter in space for a source
of mass attraction. And if gravity is so huge that atoms are torn apart you can't
have light as you need the atom with electrons changing orbits from electrical
pressures. A great modern theory thread as I wonder where all the new ideas
are developed.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


There is a medium, but I'd first have you imagine light as a transaction (a transfer of energy). You've seen Newton's Cradle in action correct? Consider light as flat panels residing between its spheres. Kinetic energy pushes through the system, so that these flat panels engage on contact (two faces light and dark result from centripetal and centrifugal forces).

Regardless if light is the fastest thing out there, it remains consistent with the flow of energy. Red shift occurs when the source of our perspective spirals in conjunction with the medium.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
There must be Einstein fans that like gravity light shifts but what happened to
old school Doppler Red and Blue shift for light due to the object speed.
Gravity being so week under laboratory conditions no one can verify any huge
gravity theory. Certain wave motions in have demonstrated mass attraction and
repulsion. There is only to apply that to the fine matter in space for a source
of mass attraction. And if gravity is so huge that atoms are torn apart you can't
have light as you need the atom with electrons changing orbits from electrical
pressures. A great modern theory thread as I wonder where all the new ideas
are developed.



This is precisely why I say black holes don't require mass... They just require a flow.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by XPLodER
 


There is a medium, but I'd first have you imagine light as a transaction (a transfer of energy). You've seen Newton's Cradle in action correct? Consider light as flat panels residing between its spheres. Kinetic energy pushes through the system, so that these flat panels engage on contact (two faces light and dark result from centripetal and centrifugal forces).

Regardless if light is the fastest thing out there, it remains consistent with the flow of energy. Red shift occurs when the source of our perspective spirals in conjunction with the medium.


are we talking about frame of reference ?
i do like the newtons cradle example as a visualization of the process.

in an anollogy the closer the spheres the more energy is efficiently imparted,
similar to the distence between atoms during atom to atom photon emittion

xploder







 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join