"gravitational" lensing

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

"gravitational" lensing

Unread postby rickard » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:03 am

Hi,

According to EU theory there is no such thing as grvitational lensing based on the fact that gravity can only influence objects with a mass, and the space is considered not to have any mass.
But, also according to EU theory, the space is filled with plasma.
Can gravity influence and "bend" the plasma in space, so that the plasma around more solid objects form according to the gravitational force of the object in question ?
rickard
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Metryq » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:46 am

Forget all the space-time pretzel bending. A plasma filled universe can "bend" light by the much more mundane and well understood mechanism of refraction. (The ole bent spoon in a glass of water bit.) See Dr. Dowdye's site.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby rickard » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:19 am

Metryq wrote:Forget all the space-time pretzel bending. A plasma filled universe can "bend" light by the much more mundane and well understood mechanism of refraction. (The ole bent spoon in a glass of water bit.) See Dr. Dowdye's site.

Thanks for the info ....
rickard
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:59 pm

Refraction indeed.
Hold a pen or pencil up to a nearby desk lamp, draw it somewhat close to your eye and squint at the pencil's edges. With care you will detect red fringes [like a sunrise or sunset] at the boundary between the pencil's silhouette and the light background. This is "refraction" of the light field, and may be explained as a pressure gradient about the central line of sight, without reference to gravity [the pencil is rather light after all, pun intended], accumulations or streams of plasma, waves* or particles. Astronomical lensing, often compared to a wine glass, is imo just an optical effect like the wine glass, or the pencil, and does not require an imaginary amassing of "dark matter" near the line of sight.
Begin to think of the pressure gradient of light as an imaging process, rather than a distortion, and a new light will dawn on how light actually works! In my ;) very humble opinion...

*Similar simple experiments can be used to show that the wave explanation is erroneous, btw, but that is beyond this post.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:43 am

Here is an additional consideration for you:
In "my" centropic pressure field theory, gravitation [mass], electricity [electrical PE, magnetism, charge], nuclear force, entropy and light are unified; all manifestations of a single principle field action. It makes complete sense to me that light rays could be affected by gravitational pressure. (And off topic, that a magnetic field could compliment a gravitational field, gravitation being [presumably] fundamentally an electrical phenomenon.) Probably too simplistic a claim in this brief note, but something to chew on.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:29 am

I don't buy any of the gravitational lensing images.

For a start they are just too large. We are told a cluster of galaxies has bent light that has passed them by at possibly hundreds of thousand, maybe millions of light years distant from their gravity (so as to focus back around toward us), yet at the same time none of the other light sources behind the galaxy (ie other galaxies behind but within the ring) are distorted at all. How can that make sense. They should be invisible or at least blurred/distorted in some way. Also, what about the light from the cluster itself. If the gravity can bend light quite significantly that's millions of light years away, what about light that's within the cluster itself. It should be a distorted mess of light.

Sorry, but I think these lensing images are all bunk. Possibly just simple reflection in gas/particles between the cluster and Earth. Like a sun halo.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:20 pm

Aardwolf,
They're not bunk, but your objections actually are in agreement with my interpretation and refraction in general.
Remember that gravity is not a "thing" per se, rather it is an action, representable [only?] by straight "line" ray diagrams, just as also the imaging of light is only modeled by optical ray diagrams. I take this as strong evidence of light [and gravitation] pressures, actions directed toward their field centers, thus my use of the term "centropic".
Thus the field centroid of a galaxy cluster is the focus of our vision but also very weakly of a gravitational vector. While the gravitation of such a distant object has obviously not a significant effect on us, the interacting light fields of the two in-line objects is causing the refraction we see. That said, I find inadequate the standard explanation for the lensing, which by the way is just another name for refraction about the central line of sight or focal axis. Exactly like a sun halo.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:40 pm

Time for some explaining pictures!

Image
click for video


Ice-dog - It only happens when there are ice-crystals in the air.

It contains Einstein's cross and ring, and it shows that this phenomenon
is possible in some kind of gas or plasma.
Both by refraction and by reflection.

So before we can claim "gravitational lensing" we first have to see if there
is no simpler explanation. And in all cases there are simpler and better explanations.

But if we look at any "Einstein cross",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
Image
We can ALWAYS see stellar structures around those crosses.
Sometimes they can be refraction/reflections.
But I suspect some are simply bright stars within a galaxy, who happen to be similar.
This can happen often when the galaxy is formed via electromagnetic interactions.

Now look at any "Einstein ring":

Image

The one above looks a bit like:
Image
Which is SNR 0509-67.5 remnants of a Type 1a supernova

Image
So many together. Something seems wrong.
This structure is so complex, it can't possibly gravitational lensing any more.

But it looks a bit similar to this one:
Image
Supernova 1987A

So the simplest and best explanation is that all "Einstein rings" are just remains of supernova.

Found even this:
Image
To add to the confusion, I will call them: Einstein squares.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:34 pm

Zyxzevn,
Your pictures are lovely, but I think you are conflating apples and oranges, perhaps even orangutans... ;)
The first picture of the sun halo and sundogs is an obvious atmospheric refraction via hexagonal ice crystals.
The second is a low resolution case of identically high-redshifted quasar objects surrounding a low-redshift star or possibly some other object. Now that may be a refractive occurrence, or maybe not, the only evidence anyone has is just what you see...
The third are two identically high-redshifted images of a galactic object wrapped around a low-redshifted elliptical galaxy at the center of a galaxy cluster, not a star. This type of image is the main kind of data used to support the gravitational lensing hypothesis. Which leads to the question of the OP.
The fourth is a "planetary" nebula, a bubble/cloud [or possibly double-lobed object seen down its long-axis "barrel"] of dust/gas/plasma[?] surrounding a dense star, presumably the result of a "supernova", but possibly caused by a Z-pinch of a different sort not fully understood in mainstream or EU/PC. Not a refractive event.
The fifth, like the third, is evidence of the subject of the OP, a question at this point, not yet clear proof for or against anything, as I see it.
The sixth is a very unusual "planetary" type object like the 4th image only seen at a different angle, with strong electrical[?] activity going on in a toroid about the central star itself. Possible a stage in the formation of a Herbig-Haro object. Not refractive.
The seventh, like the 6th and 4th, is a "planetary" nebula seen side on, also only partly understood in mainstream or EU/PC. Not a refractive event.
The only commonality among all of these images is their ringlike appearance from some perspective. Kind of like the similarity between the shape of plates and the shape of craters.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:43 am

webolife wrote:Zyxzevn,
Your pictures are lovely, but I think you are conflating apples and oranges, perhaps even orangutans... ;)


I brought them in to understand what exactly we are talking about.

As I showed, there are many interesting phenomena which have different explanations, but
none of them proof gravitational lensing. Proof requires that there is no
other explanation possible.

I would even argue that those crosses and rings can be explained in a different
and simpler way. T
As shown in the pcitures, arcs and crosses are not uncommon in normal physics
and normal astronomy.

Image

The smily-face rings look to me like the remains of an old supernova.
The rings might have fallen apart into multiple arc-pieces.
This also explains why we see more rings together.
Something that can not be explained with simple black hole lensing.
There is certainly something more complex going on.

There are also other photos of one of such "gravitational" arcs.
The arc stays constant, but some lights within the arcs seem
to differ.
This would be more consistent with the movement of of a plasma ring,
and not with the movement of the black hole.
In the latter case, I would expect the whole arc and ring to move,
as is normal with a real lens.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:27 pm

My interest in that fifth "smiley" image is focused on the fact that the centroid of the cluster is in relatively vacant space. This is not a problem of course for a geometrical center of mass, but it is certainly not indicative of a bunch of dark matter. Since I see both gravitation/mass and light as pressure phenomena, it is not necessary that there be an object, BH, WIMP or otherwise occupying that space.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:21 am

webolife wrote:Aardwolf,
They're not bunk, but your objections actually are in agreement with my interpretation and refraction in general.
Remember that gravity is not a "thing" per se, rather it is an action, representable [only?] by straight "line" ray diagrams, just as also the imaging of light is only modeled by optical ray diagrams. I take this as strong evidence of light [and gravitation] pressures, actions directed toward their field centers, thus my use of the term "centropic".
Thus the field centroid of a galaxy cluster is the focus of our vision but also very weakly of a gravitational vector. While the gravitation of such a distant object has obviously not a significant effect on us, the interacting light fields of the two in-line objects is causing the refraction we see. That said, I find inadequate the standard explanation for the lensing, which by the way is just another name for refraction about the central line of sight or focal axis. Exactly like a sun halo.
I think the point is that the light in the rings is just a reflection of the light sources in the centre of the ring, and not light sourced from an object bent around from behind the central object.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:36 am

Further, why do none of the stars orbiting what is supposed to be a supermassive black hole at Sagittarius A have any of their light distorted? The paths are easy to follow over time but how can that be possible when orbiting behind from just mere light hours distant?

Gravitational lensing = Garbage.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby nick c » Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:26 am

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby kodybatill » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:34 pm

Hay there! I had a concept. If there is a possibility that Muonic Hydrogen is one of the first types of atoms to ever exist - and that there are infra-red positron equivalents of an exact Muonic Hydrogen atom - could it be possible that ALL phenomena in the Universe are effects of refraction between the Muonic Hydrogen atom - and it's infra-red equivalent? I say that also because - professional scientists even today say that it is nearly impossible to analyze with accuracy - the exact design and form and components of a Muonic Hydrogen atom - and so it's EXACT - ability to refract - produces refraction of a nature that would be equally difficult to track - but still being existent - and if Muonic Hydrogen being one of the original atoms - this refraction would be all prevalent.
kodybatill
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:28 pm

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest