"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

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:06 am

Not sure about that muonic hydrogen, but...
Hey Aardwolf,
I totally agree with your summation of the "core"-orbiting stars in our galaxy. However, that objection to me simply negates a supermassive black hole at that location. It really says nothing about the lensing question suggested by the other images. The only situations in which lensing is a question would be those rare cases in which distorted figures are seen wrapped about the centroid of other objects, including possibly massive stars or galactic cluster centroids, which allegedly are in the line of sight with the more distant galaxies. Those curvy images are almost exclusively spiral galaxies, while the "foreground" galaxies are almost exclusively the more massive ellipticals. Let's not carelessly trash the lensing phenomenon without being able to offer a feasible alternative. And let's not confuse the lensing question [with accompanying visual evidences] with the presence of black holes, the latter of which are up to now still figments of the imagination. That confusion is what dominates the mainstream explanation.
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: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:19 am

webolife wrote:Not sure about that muonic hydrogen, but...
Hey Aardwolf,
I totally agree with your summation of the "core"-orbiting stars in our galaxy. However, that objection to me simply negates a supermassive black hole at that location. It really says nothing about the lensing question suggested by the other images. The only situations in which lensing is a question would be those rare cases in which distorted figures are seen wrapped about the centroid of other objects, including possibly massive stars or galactic cluster centroids, which allegedly are in the line of sight with the more distant galaxies. Those curvy images are almost exclusively spiral galaxies, while the "foreground" galaxies are almost exclusively the more massive ellipticals. Let's not carelessly trash the lensing phenomenon without being able to offer a feasible alternative. And let's not confuse the lensing question [with accompanying visual evidences] with the presence of black holes, the latter of which are up to now still figments of the imagination. That confusion is what dominates the mainstream explanation.
Putting aside the BH issue it still doesn't explain my other points. Look at the diagram below;
Gravity Lensing.jpg
The distance between the cluster and the bend is possibly millions of light years. If that were possible all of the light in the region behind the cluster would also be affected by it. Yet when we observe the region within the ring the sources are perfect. I appreciate some of the sources will be in front of the cluster but not all of them. Also, the pull of a cluster millions of light years away is miniscule compared to the pull of a star in it's own system. Light travelling anywhere near a star should be distorted all over the place.

Gravitational lensing, by any mechanism, is impossible. If it were possible it would be everywhere and unmistakeable.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:48 pm

Aardwolf wrote:Gravitational lensing, by any mechanism, is impossible. If it were possible it would be everywhere and unmistakeable.


The mechanism of refractive* imaging [aka lensing] is everywhere and unmistakable.
However we accustom ourselves to common "vision" to such a degree that we don't realize how much our ability to see depends upon "lensing". Any time or situation in which the light rays are ordered by the placement of an edge, slit, pinhole [pupil], beamsplitter, or other focusing device [prism or lens], imaging [and vision] is enabled. Optical ray diagrams demonstrate how this works, but without the "why" to go with it...
So about the "why":
--There has never been a wave explanation for imaging. Olbers' paradox rises from any attempt to justify the possibility of clear imaging of distant stellar objects within the framework of light wavefronts impinging upon our eyes or sensors. It can be argued that no specific observations [least of all of distant stars] would be possible under a strictly held wave theory.
--Corpuscular light also bears the problem that you bring up regarding intermediating material between the distant source and the "blocking" galaxy or cluster.
--Optical diagrams demonstrate imaging, just as in your diagram. They don't model wavefronts, nor do they help us understand how particles can behave this way, unless you invoke gravitational light attraction. Which is the question of this post.
Gravitational explanations for lensing require additional matter where none is observed, hence more duties for the imaginary dark matter. But simple "refraction" as a geometric phenomenon, based on the principles of a pressure field, and supported by any and all slit experiments, is workable at all scales without a call for extraordinary amounts of mass, let alone dark matter, black holes, or any other WIMPs.
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: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby MotionTheory » Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:44 am

I told my son this morning: "I have been following this person for the last few weeks. Read this(quote below) beautiful sentence." ... Got a smiley nod.

webolife wrote:... simple "refraction" as a geometric phenomenon, based on the principles of a pressure field, and supported by any and all slit experiments, is workable at all scales without a call for extraordinary amounts of mass, let alone dark matter, black holes, or any other WIMPs.


Pressure field describes environment/configurattion lead to light bending affect. 'Warp space' is saying the same thing except it is an unnecessary mathematical abstraction (w/o physical reality) versus pressure dynamic is real and well understood.

Dark/black/anti/quantum/higgs/magic XYZ are just 'place-holder' terms of constituents attributed to warp/pressure field. This is a lateral/parallel path, which is useful for giving different looks/perspectives at a distance from figuring out 'bend/refraction' force/mechanism.

Refraction should consider as steering tensor field because affect involves multiple force vectors. In 'lensing' context - it is at mediums boundary volume and steers by geometric pressure distribution.

Universe is very simple, therefore Cosmos! Physics magic/dimensional exceptions are 99.9999% dead-end paths whereby must explore other paths and drop when encountered permanent exceptions. I see the Universe w/o exceptions. 'See' with open mind, forever yours!

Webolife - good signature! I share similar vision/value.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Aardwolf » Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:03 pm

webolife wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Gravitational lensing, by any mechanism, is impossible. If it were possible it would be everywhere and unmistakeable.


The mechanism of refractive* imaging [aka lensing] is everywhere and unmistakable.
I said gravitational lensing is impossible for the reasons stated. I have no idea why you are conflating that to mean I stated refraction is impossible.

Einstein rings could be refracted images but as I stated before, the source of the light in the rings would therefore be the galaxy/light source in the centre of the image, and not light from a source behind the galaxy/light source in the centre of the image.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:30 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
webolife wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Gravitational lensing, by any mechanism, is impossible. If it were possible it would be everywhere and unmistakeable.


The mechanism of refractive* imaging [aka lensing] is everywhere and unmistakable.
I said gravitational lensing is impossible for the reasons stated. I have no idea why you are conflating that to mean I stated refraction is impossible.

Einstein rings could be refracted images but as I stated before, the source of the light in the rings would therefore be the galaxy/light source in the center of the image, and not light from a source behind the galaxy/light source in the centre of the image.


What I am saying is that light field presentation as "diffraction", "refraction", or other "newton's Rings" cases can be shown to be ubiquitous, despite the mechanisms of biological vision that reduce this phenomenon for the sake of clarity. Ie. our retina brain and brain are designed to eliminate the "fringes" about the objects we see, leaving us thinking that diffractive/refractive phenomena are unusual or "special". I'm a student [and aficionado] of atmospheric halos and rainbows, and spectra of all kinds and in various devices, particularly familiar with spectroscopic imaging and the single and double slit experiments from which Thomas Young concluded [incorrectly] that light "interference" was analogous to an acoustical wave phenomenon. Physics has been beset by this misconception for nearly a century and a half.
Could you explain further why you insist the light from "rings" has to be from the center object of the image[s]? This is particularly problematic in the following cases [which are the vast majority of the cases]:
1. The "ring" images seem to be of spiral galaxies where the central object is an elliptical galaxy.
2. The "rings" wrap around a "center" that has no object at that location.
3. The redshift of the "rings" is significantly higher than the redshift of the central object[s]
Are you claiming that the reason and cause of these rings is media between the central images and our viewpoint?
How do you support this claim?
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: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:07 am

webolife wrote:Could you explain further why you insist the light from "rings" has to be from the center object of the image[s]?
Because I suspect the light observed in the rings is merely reflected/refracted from the source in (or near) the middle.

webolife wrote:This is particularly problematic in the following cases [which are the vast majority of the cases]:
1. The "ring" images seem to be of spiral galaxies where the central object is an elliptical galaxy.
How can that even be determined considering it’s smeared around a circle. Maybe you see a spiral (as that is what we are told we are seeing). All I see is a messy smear.

webolife wrote:2. The "rings" wrap around a "center" that has no object at that location.
Then isn’t that fatal for an Einstien ring? What is lensing it then? However, I’m not sure any such phenomena is observable. What Einstein rings have no central objects?

webolife wrote:3. The redshift of the "rings" is significantly higher than the redshift of the central object[s]
Really? As far as I am aware the thousands that have been observed are not high redshift examples. However, I am of the view that redshift is caused by lights interaction with matter and not the dubious expansion of the fabric of spacetime. Therefore, refracted/reflected light I would expect to have a higher redshift. In addition I would also like to see the redshift calcs on a case by case basis as it isn't easy to redshift everything. Sometimes liberties are taken, assumptions made etc. especially when they expect the redshift to be higher.

webolife wrote:Are you claiming that the reason and cause of these rings is media between the central images and our viewpoint?
Yes.

webolife wrote:How do you support this claim?
Because it is far more likely that it is caused by simple optical physics than by unobservable dark matter shenanigans. And the following significant problems (not exhaustive);

1) Why no distortion within the ring? Some of the objects within the ring must be emanating from behind the central lensing galaxy/cluster. Why are these not distorted? Why do they get a free pass through the lensing area? If it were truly lensing this effect would be evident throughout the ringed area not just the extremity. However, a ring alone is exactly what you would see as an effect of light passing through a reflecting/refracting medium. Just like a sun halo.

2) Why do the Einstien rings all appear to be blue in the observable spectrum? This is an unanswered question in standard physics as there appears no reason for it. However, the resulting colour of light that is refracted/reflected by the media is more likely to be blue as evidenced by Rayleigh scattering of the atmosphere.

I suspect if Einstein knew how many of these things we can now observe, compared to the likelyhood of being in the right place all lined up to observe them, he would have disowned the phenomena.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:32 pm

Let me clarify a few things about my view:
1. I don't subscribe to dark matter, dark energy, black holes or WIMPS
2. I think the lensing phenomenon is akin to refraction, not unlike atmospheric halos, but...
3. More like the "fringe" spectra seen at the edge of slits, pinholes, beamsplitters, prisms and other lensing devices... I would propose that the "obstructing" clusters are behaving like beam splitters... simple optics.
4. It can be readily shown that in the spectra of slit devices, incl spectroscopes and various other diffraction grating apparati, the colored regions are actually precise images of the illuminating object being observed, rather than "distorting" the light of the object through wave-based diffraction. This imaging I'm suggesting is not possible under the Olbers perspective where wavefronts somehow carry the light information to us.
5. In the cases of this thread, some medium is probably involved, as in looking at an object through a wineglass, but it simply has to be refractive, not of imaginary or immense mass.
6. I hold that gravitational pressure and light pressure may be both modeled by the same means of optical ray diagrams, so yes, they are both in a way "optical" actions. So I have no problem thinking of a centroid of a galactic cluster, even though that centroid may contain no single illuminating object, exerting some influence on the light pressure field it overlaps [from an object hidden by the direct line of sight].
7. I am open to other refractive models to explain this. I am open to other unifications of gravity and light [and the other fundamental pressures [charge, magnetism, nuclear forces, etc.] that don't match my centropic pressure field theory, and always look for ways to improve on or fill in some of the unanswered questions that I have within that framework.
8. I will question everything. I don't like claims that are made in an affront to clear evidence. I don't like claims that are made without supporting evidence. These may be shown to be valid claims perhaps, but when the evidence is lacking or points elsewhere, that's where I'll point, and that's where I will argue.
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: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:46 pm

To answer one other objection, the "smiley face" example given on the first page of this post is one of many examples where the central region being "located" by the curvy "lensed" images is not occupied by a single object. Here are some more:
https://www.space.com/14481-hubble-photo-brightest-galaxy-gravitational-lens.html
https://i.cbc.ca/1.4101457.1494001435!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_1180/hubble-abell-370-galaxies.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/mpaglseminar/
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: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu May 03, 2018 7:55 am

webolife wrote:Let me clarify a few things about my view:
1. I don't subscribe to dark matter, dark energy, black holes or WIMPS
2. I think the lensing phenomenon is akin to refraction, not unlike atmospheric halos, but...
3. More like the "fringe" spectra seen at the edge of slits, pinholes, beamsplitters, prisms and other lensing devices... I would propose that the "obstructing" clusters are behaving like beam splitters... simple optics.
4. It can be readily shown that in the spectra of slit devices, incl spectroscopes and various other diffraction grating apparati, the colored regions are actually precise images of the illuminating object being observed, rather than "distorting" the light of the object through wave-based diffraction. This imaging I'm suggesting is not possible under the Olbers perspective where wavefronts somehow carry the light information to us.
5. In the cases of this thread, some medium is probably involved, as in looking at an object through a wineglass, but it simply has to be refractive, not of imaginary or immense mass.
6. I hold that gravitational pressure and light pressure may be both modeled by the same means of optical ray diagrams, so yes, they are both in a way "optical" actions. So I have no problem thinking of a centroid of a galactic cluster, even though that centroid may contain no single illuminating object, exerting some influence on the light pressure field it overlaps [from an object hidden by the direct line of sight].
7. I am open to other refractive models to explain this. I am open to other unifications of gravity and light [and the other fundamental pressures [charge, magnetism, nuclear forces, etc.] that don't match my centropic pressure field theory, and always look for ways to improve on or fill in some of the unanswered questions that I have within that framework.
8. I will question everything. I don't like claims that are made in an affront to clear evidence. I don't like claims that are made without supporting evidence. These may be shown to be valid claims perhaps, but when the evidence is lacking or points elsewhere, that's where I'll point, and that's where I will argue.
Ok. But none of that explains why the phenomena happens millions of light years away from the central cause of it. Why is the “fringe” effect so far away, and no evidence of this effect in the vast distance between the centre and the ring?

Also, why is the effect in visible light mostly turning the ring blue? Why is the red end of the visible spectrum nearly always absent?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu May 03, 2018 8:37 am

webolife wrote:To answer one other objection, the "smiley face" example given on the first page of this post is one of many examples where the central region being "located" by the curvy "lensed" images is not occupied by a single object. Here are some more:
All of those curves have a focal point that could be the source of the light. Just because there are brighter objects nearby, that doesn’t mean they are the source. The left sided curve has a focal point on the right “eye”. The right sided curve has a focal point on the dim star between the “eyes”. The bottom curve has a focal point on the same dim star.

The focal point of the large bright curve on the left is two combined as the curvature on the upper redder part is different to the lower bluer part. The upper part is focussed on the 3rd one down of the 4 main bright sources in the middle. The lower part is focussed on the 2nd one down.

All the curves here have potential light sources at their focal points.

Again. Numerous potential light sources at the focal points.

These are all just evidence of nearby (to us) refraction. If fact the more convoluted the image, the less chance the source light is coming from behind as it should result in a distorted mess. As I have said repeatedly. If some effect (whatever it is) can affect light passing millions of light years away, everything in between should be affected as well. Even more so as the light is passing by closer.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby MotionTheory » Sun May 06, 2018 11:28 am

Aardwolf :thumb up: An awesome question (combined both into 1)!

First let's address lensing orientation. This model is correct but doesn't answer your question: http://www.liquidgravity.nz/GRAVITATIONAL_LENSING.html

*note - below is target toward EM. And not cover all components of gravity. And ignoring spin directions because not relevant for EM.

In order to answer your question, I have been trying to come up with a reasonably coherent description of lensing mechanisms...

1st - Magnitude of refraction (just a label/name of a force) is proportional to Area of object(EM in this case). Fine Gravity(just a name of force/actor) density (sparseness in this case) push/affect more for object/EM with larger Area (cross section of EM surface), therefore more longer(+wider radius) wavelengths are captured and diffuse reflected than shorter wavelength EM.

2nd - prism/high-density is reverse (where blue refract and also scatter more) because Fine Gravity affects EM almost the same but Radiative Coarse Gravity(call this a repelling/push-away force if you like) pushes larger area object away, while smaller area objects scatter/deflect more by outgoing Coarse Gravity.

3rd - Object Motion/Move required pushes against other object(s). Include everything in this Universe but the container/space itself. I've a rambling video about push-only-force: https://youtu.be/e-HPePn7MTU

My mind sees an elegant & simple universe (The Fabric Theory) - it must be because otherwise large number/propagation errors/chaos disallow existence of complex objects.

Aardwolf wrote:... why is the effect in visible light mostly turning the ring blue? Why is the red end of the visible spectrum nearly always absent?
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby moses » Sun May 06, 2018 8:17 pm

If light is bending towards the Sun more than scientists think then all the parallax calculations are incorrect and distances to nearby stars would be orders of magnitude closer than that calculated now. This in turn would throw off the calculations of any bending around nearby stars, and consequently the bending around all objects in the universe. So what you are considering is most important.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Mon May 07, 2018 8:47 pm

I like motiontheory's refractive scenarios, these all may have some merit from the standpoint of optical geometry.
Aardwolf, I understand much of what you are saying from the perspective of our common objection to a central gravitymonster-object doing the refracting work. I simply hold that a gravitational centroid [simply, center of mass, even if that center is not occupied by a significant or any massive object, or even by a luminous object] has an optical effect due to the unification of mass and light in my centropy pressure theory. What intervening medium are you envisioning for a "nearby" refraction, and why if it's there, isn't every "regional" object likewise "distorted" by that alleged medium? For me, a single object directly behind may be refracted into 'wine-glassy' images such as what we see, but how would 'nearer" objects be distorted in such a way, particularly [as I think you are implying] by light from some dim central star?
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: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby MotionTheory » Thu May 17, 2018 10:48 am

What are Gravity; Electricity; Darks; Higgy beside labels, similar to convenient terminologies designate behaviors inertia/momentum/wave/etc?

Gravitational Lensing is just an extrapolation based on inventive math without physical representation. So many brains already spent/wasted on SpaceTime as physical reality, whereas properly SpaceTime should be treats/uses similar to FFT and other math transformation techniques.

GR, LCDM, PC models of gravity don't have a rational/plausible explanation for object below. It doesn't has central mass nor coherent matter structures but it's glowing seemingly without a power source! Of course it must has power source(s) otherwise we would end up with another magical physics such as 'expanding universe with a constant lambda' :oops:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubb ... ource.html
Image

Just remove remnant central object(s) there would be slightly dimmer but still bright net volume glow just like above.
https://astroanarchy.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ebula.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 094112.htm

What powered SNR 0509-67.5 to glow for hundreds of years? The correction answer would easily adapt to answer this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_(cometary)#/media/File:Infrared_Structure_of_Comet_Holmes.jpg
Image

... see!
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest