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.

 

AGN candle could show that "universal expansion could be an illusion"

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
New Discovery: Active Galactic Nuclei of Black Holes Found at Core of All Galaxies


Black holes, such as those at the centers of active galactic nuclei, can’t be observed directly as not even light escapes their gravitational field. But as material swirls toward the event horizon, before it’s sucked into the void, it releases intense radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including visible light. Of these, X-rays are often the brightest as they can penetrate the dust and gas that sometimes obscures other wavelengths.

“When we take into account variations in the strength of the X-ray signal, which can be relatively weak even from extremely fast-growing black holes, we find them over a whole range of galaxies,” Aird said


very interesting article
well worth the read

xploder




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Hi Xeven

One of the encouraging things about the math I am developing is that it says that everyone is right, but just not complete. Relativity is right, Quantum Mechanics is right, String Theory is right, M Theory is right, Cell Biology is right, Morphogenic fields are right, Plato's ideal form is right, etc. It also shows that the pyramid texts are very right, religion is right, shamanism is right, etc etc etc.

If you want to get a good handle on how orthodox science does its part in the overall progress of human consciousness, try reading T.S. Kuhn;s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. A seminal book.

In it he clearly shows that scientific progress has two parts. The established, orthodox field generally works within an existing paradigm, and seeks to extend and confirm what is already know. An incredibly important by product is that they produce a very catalogue of experimental evidence that conflicts with existing theory.

A different personality type, usually young and or very new to the field, takes these anomailies and fashions them into a new paradigm. The orthodox usually give the new paradigm a hard time, as is appropriate. That hardness refines and perfects the new paradigm. Only the truly breakthrough ideas get past the opposition, which keeps the whole process on track.

There are plenty of very sharp minds working on new paradigms all the time. Tis just not so easy to do.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hi Arbitrageur.

I couldn't find the article that your quotes and graph were from at the link given. Is it from another source?

Pretty prescient post, though. I came back to say that all of the other falsifying observations can be dealt with by the new math, but that I can't find anything on the time dilation bit.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melyanna
Hi Arbitrageur.

I couldn't find the article that your quotes and graph were from at the link given. Is it from another source?
Sorry about that, it's actually the #1 source at the bottom of the link I provided, but I meant to provide a direct link. Here's the direct link:

www.astro.ucla.edu...

You can also check out the other sources at the bottom of the earlier link, this is just one of them. I hope this helps, and sorry for the mixup.


Pretty prescient post, though.
I'm not sure what was prescient about it, you mentioned two things you'd looked at, and I just mentioned a third thing you can look at.



Originally posted by Melyanna
There are plenty of very sharp minds working on new paradigms all the time. Tis just not so easy to do.
It's easy to work on new paradigms. It's getting other people to accept them that's hard.

edit on 10-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Has it ever been proved experimentally that light is red shifted? has there been a probe for the sole purpose of measuring the red shift of light? has there been a lab experiment?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Has it ever been proved experimentally that light is red shifted?
Yes and there's really no debate about whether the light is redshifted or not, at least none that I've seen. Pretty much everybody agrees the redshift is proven.

The "debate" if you can call it that, is about the cause of the red shifting. The consensus view is that the redshift indicates both distance, and motion (the greater the redshift, the greater the distance to the galaxy, and the faster it's moving away from us).

There are some who have thought maybe it's only an indication of distance, but it doesn't necessarily indicate movement (or the expansion of space). The consensus view says that hypothesis has been proven wrong with observation, such as the observations shown in the graph I posted about the time dilation of supernovas, which is a result of motion, and not just distance.

I hope that helps.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Melyanna
Pretty prescient post, though.
I'm not sure what was prescient about it, you mentioned two things you'd looked at, and I just mentioned a third thing you can look at.
Melyanna, writing that post to masterp reminded me, the light coming from the Antromeda Galaxy is blueshifted (and at least one other galaxy). That's a 4th item a tired light model would need to be consistent with, meaning it would need to explain why the light from some galaxies like Andomeda is blue shifted. The consensus view is that the Milky way and the Andromeda galaxies are on a collision course and are moving toward each other, so that would explain the blue shift. I'm not sure how a tired light model would deal with that?

Here's an article about the expected collision with an artist's rendering:
Source: www.cfa.harvard.edu...

edit on 11-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Man, that was a truly beautiful and thought provoking OP. More than that, trying to read it made me realize that being awake for only an hour and not having any coffee yet makes it difficult to even comprehend your OP...Im off to grab a gallaon, wake up and come back and attempt to learn a thing or two



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DerbyCityLights
 


here is a nsf article on the details of the lensing phenomonon

national science foundation

it explains the discovery in deepth

xp



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
.... maybe the universe was a bubble that popped. Kinda like this but in zero gravity.





posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I did not mean an experiment about if redshifting is real, but an experiment that ties redshifting to distance. Has such an experiment ever carried out? and what is the conclusion of that experiment?

Furthermore, has such experiment ever done on objects stationary in space? can we identify experimentally that the void expands?

Finally, can we prove that the void inside matter does not expand? matter is also hollow, albeit a little less than the void of space. Personally, I do not see why the void inside matter doe not expand.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
I did not mean an experiment about if redshifting is real, but an experiment that ties redshifting to distance. Has such an experiment ever carried out? and what is the conclusion of that experiment?
The first such observations I know of were published in 1929 by Edwin Hubble. See

Hubble, Edwin (1929). "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae"
The relationship was called "Hubble's Law" and we conduct observations every year to try to refine the value of Hubble's constant, the key component of Hubble's law. So we are constantly making new observations related to this.


Furthermore, has such experiment ever done on objects stationary in space? can we identify experimentally that the void expands?
There is no such thing as "stationary in space" to my knowledge. The closest thing to that would be the observations we make of the nearest star, the sun, but even then we aren't a fixed distance away since the Earth's orbit isn't perfectly circular, it's slightly elliptical, but it's close enough to a fixed distance where we can use the spectral lines from the sun as a baseline for assessing the redshift of other, more distant objects.


Finally, can we prove that the void inside matter does not expand? matter is also hollow, albeit a little less than the void of space. Personally, I do not see why the void inside matter doe not expand.
That's kind of like asking if we can prove that the earth accelerates toward a paper clip when you drop a paper clip. The math says it does, but realistically it's impossible to measure that. We can measure the movement of the Earth from something much larger like the mass that shifted in the March 2011 Japan Earthquake, but not from dropping a paper clip. Even on the scale of our solar system, if the metric expansion of space was occurring, the amount would be so small as to be dwarfed by the other motions going on.

Your question infers a change in the distance between atoms which in solid matter would mean the electron orbitals change. I think that's highly improbable. However, if you rephrase the question to something like this:

"What is the smallest scale where the metric expansion of space has been observed?" I think the answer is "between galaxies" but if you find out otherwise let me know. That doesn't necessarily prove it's not happening on smaller scales, but if it is, it may just be difficult for us to measure for numerous reasons, including the likelihood that the effect is dwarfed by other forces on smaller scales, like electromagnetism and gravity.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



What once was an interesting quirk or relativity is fast becoming a powerful tool for visualizing the actual universe and how it looks in the large scale. Large scale structures in the universe are able to be studied because gravitational lenses allow much more distant objects and structures to be viewed in a way that can define the larger structure filaments that we are also part of. A very interesting point to note is that dark energy and dark matter are required when we try to compare our local solar measurements into the greater universe. Scale problems start to crop up like the fact that some galaxies exhibited a rotation curve higher than the visible gravity mass could account for. Another problem is the fact that certain types of supernova have been observed across vast distances in space, to be slower the further away from our position you get.
Mass =space/time curvature is a very reasonable fit for most situations but lacks something to explain some of the curious cluster lensing we observe. the overall mass in a cluster is high enough to provide gravitational lensing potential from mass and general relativity alone. When the example of individual galaxy lensing is compaired to the cluster model (mass gravity) there is no mention of the material and density space between the individual galaxies. The mutual attraction of gravity at the large scale required to bind the galaxies into a filamentary structure would also attract local clouds of gasses. Each gas at a pressure/density relationship with the larger structure of the cluster can have a slightly different refractive index in a given gravity environment.
the combined gravitational potential would attract material between the individual galaxies and that gas would be under the gravitational potential of the cluster where the mass gravity was highest. This implies that if each individual galaxy was thought of as an individual lenses embedded in a larger lense created by the density of the gaseous material surrounding the cluster.
Light in the individual galaxy lensing is easily identified in the infrared and sub mm wave lengths and can be used to locate lensing events. This signature should be detectable within the cluster at the individual galaxy level and around the gas density surrounding the galaxies.
When you put a magnifying glass inside a sphere of glass with a different refractive index material different optical effects can be achived. The material density and composition of the gasses surrounding the galaxies and bound by the collective cluster gravity has an effect on the strength and interaction with the light that transverses the cluster by the same “optical lens” gravitational lensing dynamic.
The recent studies probing the cluster formations for the effects of position within the cluster and light signatures effects as they transverse the cluster have enabled us to refine what happens to light from various “depths” from within the cluster structure.
At a larger scale the filamentary structure itself can used for gravitational potential as the filament has a different optical and gravitational potential than the surrounding space. At each scale size the optical properties of the surrounding medium on the lensing has an effect on the efficiency of the gravitational potential.
The different lenses act on each other in a compound manner with the gravitational potential highest at the largest mass where the most pressure density of the gasses exists due to gravity.
When lensing potential exists mass and gravity are present, but the material around the lens would also be effected by gravity and surround the galaxies in a slightly higher density higher refractivity medium.


xploder



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Gravitational lensing is cool. Did you intend to show a source?

It will be nice if they can solve the dark matter mystery because so much of gravitational lensing is believed to involve dark matter, that it will be comforting to know what is really going on, and that dark matter isn't really something else that could be misinterpreted.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Gravitational lensing is cool. Did you intend to show a source?

It will be nice if they can solve the dark matter mystery because so much of gravitational lensing is believed to involve dark matter, that it will be comforting to know what is really going on, and that dark matter isn't really something else that could be misinterpreted.



hi buddy forget to mention im the source,
i have been writting a report for a science article
will post more soon

xp




top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join