Gravitational Lensing Images

[Glayvin34]

Hello, everyone on the Thunderbolts Forums, this is my first post, can't wait to hear what all of you have to say.

I read the past TPOD articles on Gravitational Lensing, then went so far as to download and read Einstein's "Lens-like action of a star by the deviation of light in the gravitational field" from 1936 (http://personalpages.to.infn.it/~zanine ... in1936.pdf if you're interested). I'm not formally trained in Astrophysics, but I got the gist of the article, in that there must be a fairly large degree of gravity to observe a gravitational lensing effect if the observer isn't in the exact right place.

My question is about the "Einstein Ring" article on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring). The second image on the page is a compilation of 8 images of phenomena reported to be Einstein Rings, effects of gravitational lensing. Further down the page there is also an image of a "Double Einstein Ring".

So, my question for everyone is: what are these phenomena if not gravitational lensing effects? Are they necessarily plasma arcs between charged and uncharged bodies? Or are they luminous matter organized by the magnetic structure of the object they surround?

[Solar]

Here is a previous thread on supposed "Gravitational Lensing"

[mharratsc]

I think what you're asking is "If the objects in Einstein's Cross" aren't gravitationally lensed objects, what are they?"

If so, the answer would be "They are the quasar offspring of the galaxy in the center, and the glowing arcs between the galaxy and the quasars are the Birkland current 'circuits' that connect them to momma."

[Lloyd]

At http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&h ... s&aq=f&oq=
they call all of the following Einstein rings:
1. 2.
3.
4.
* Try putting a glass or acrylic sphere on a table and looking through it at a small light some distance behind it. See if you can see a light ring effect at any distance. And see if you can see a partial ring. I doubt that it can happen.
* In image #1 a distant galaxy far behind the front object would surely not produce such a thick, bright ring. The partial ring can be accounted for as a nebula, an equatorial torus, or the reflection off of an atmosphere.
* Image #2 looks like a galaxy.
* #3 looks like a newly forming galaxy.
* #4 looks like a vortex in something.
If you go to the sites where the images are located, you may get better ideas than what I've stated.

[Influx]

Number four looks CGI to me.

[Siggy_G]

Number four looks CGI to me.

Sure thing - the image resolution is increased and differs as the CG filter pinches areas of the original image (around the center). Don't know about the source - it may well have been intended as an illustration though (which I have an impression often are presented as if they were true Hubble photos).

[Lloyd]

* You think #4 is a Common Gateway Interface (CGI), a standard protocol for interfacing external application software with an information server? The image comes from http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... ein-r.html and probably other sites.
* The article title is The Einstein Rings: Hubble Captures Galaxies in an Exotic Alignment! And the caption says:

The Hubble Space Telescope has revealed a never-before-seen optical alignment in space: a pair of glowing rings, one nestled inside the other like a bull's-eye pattern. The double-ring pattern is caused by the complex bending of light from two distant galaxies strung directly behind a foreground massive galaxy, like three beads on a string. The foreground galaxy is 3 billion light-years away, the inner ring and outer ring are comprised of multiple images of two galaxies at a distance of 6 and approximately 11 billion light-years.

* Surely NASA people or whoever it was would know the difference between an artifact and a real image. Wouldn't they?

[Siggy_G]

* You think #4 is a Common Gateway Interface (CGI), a standard protocol for interfacing external application software with an information server?

CGI is more commonly referred to as "Computer Generated Image". I.e. NASA also has a team of computer artists compiling their various wave length images into something photo-like. And also: illustrate what is observed in else obscure images.

* Surely NASA people or whoever it was would know the difference between an artifact and a real image. Wouldn't they?

Yes, NASA would know - but would we, the public, know whether or not the image is a computer generated illustation or a visible wavelength photo?

The article you refer to, doesn't state whether or not the image is a photo or an illustration, so I searched for the credited person:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~leonidas/index.html#

"I work on observational cosmology and the problem of galaxy formation and evolution, largely by building and exploiting multi-wavelength (or "panchromatic") surveys that combine ground- and space-based observations."

Also: the illustration even looks like a cheap application of Photoshop filters, with evident pixel stretching and with differential resolution from the surrounding image and the filtered (central) area.

One of the links in the article, shows actual photos that seems far likely to what Hubble have collected, and what the article elaborates on:

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2005 ... /print.jpg

[Drethon]

#4 comes from this website which makes it very clear it is CGI:

http://stephenbrooks.org/misc/blackhole/

You know, I find it interesting that it seems like all light that is supposed to be gravitationally lensed is blue. What could be the reason for that?

[webolife]

Interesting question, Drethon. There is an interpretive bias toward the idea that "further away" objects should be younger-looking, due to the nature of the alleged big bang, and blue=younger fits that paradigm [sort of]. On the other hand, greatly redshifted objects in Arp's scenario tend to be younger than less red-shifted objects, so that negates the previous view. On the other hand blue is scattered, as in our atmosphere, therefore reflected more than red, so the intervening material, if it is there, could be absorbing the red end of the spectrum, leaving the wispy blue images. On the other hand, let's see, that's four hands now, the blue color of supposed lensed galaxies may be attributed to the electrical environment in which they are being formed and/or seen, leaving out any necessity of relative distance, intervening massive dark material, etc.

[Lloyd]

* I skimmed through the site where you say the image #4 originated at http://stephenbrooks.org/misc/blackhole, but it was unclear that the image is purely imaginary. It seemed that they were saying the image was based on real observational data, which CGI simply made visible. But then, toward the end of the page it says:

Note that all these images are calculated for observers who are stationary relative to the outside world (their spatial Schwarzschild coordinates are constant).

, so that makes it seem that the images are not real at all.
* I think Steven Crothers said the Schwarzschild equation is erroneous, so all the images on that webpage are apparently erroneous calculations.
* That's a real galaxy image that they put their distorted images in; isn't it? I was wondering which galaxy it is. Is it the Sombrero? No.

[mharratsc]

Blue is a longer wavelength of light, so therefore is less affected by absorbtion/scatter... hency why blue/indigo are the last colors you see the deeper you dive into the ocean.

[Lloyd]

* No, blue has the shortest wavelength, except for violet. The light spectrum goes from about 400 to 700 nm; blue is about 475 nm and red about 650 nm as per http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wave ... olors.html .
* Blue has the nearly highest frequency of about 6.3 x 10^14 Hz.
* Red has the lowest at about 4.6 x 10^14 Hz.
The formula apparently is Lf=c, i.e. wavelength x frequency = speed of light. So f=c/L.
* I guess higher frequency light has higher energy, so the higher energy may be why blue penetrates farther under water.
* I see Wiki answers http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_the_sun%27 ... hat_degree agrees:

Do the sun's tanning rays penetrate water and to what degree?
They sure do
The sun's rays do penetrate water, but each color penetrates to a different extent. The more energetic colors penetrate deeper, while the longer wavelengths peter out at shallower depths.
Red light is absorbed within 15 to 20 feet, while blue light will make it down as far as 200 feet or more, depending on the clarity and turbidity of the water.
Violet light rays lose their punch quicker than blue rays, so if this trend continues, ultraviolet light might not penetrate as far.

* This site http://www.mrsmacdonald.net/Ocean%20zones.htm has additional info.

[webolife]

Lloyd is of course right about blue having greater "energy." As a matter of geometry, blue is closer to the central line of sight [as part of the pressure gradient], therefore has a stronger vectoral component of magnitude. Thus it is more interactive with common materials... air, dust, water, etc. than red, and we see this interaction as reflection... less interactive vectors are likewise "absorbed" which simply means they are not reflected as much. The relative amount of reflection or absorption is much of what we see as color. I do not ascribe the theoretical constructs of wavelength and frequency to light in the traditional formulaic way that Lloyd presented, nor do I ascribe to light a c-rate. [See the Robert Archer Smith thread for more on this.]

[Plasmatic]

I think Steven Crothers said the Schwarzschild equation is erroneous, so all the images on that webpage are apparently erroneous calculations.

Actually what he said is that the "Schwarzschild solution" used by black hole theorist isnt Schwarzschilds solution at all.