"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 silvanelf » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:44 am

webolife wrote:I like motiontheory's refractive scenarios, these all may have some merit from the standpoint of optical geometry.


There is an equivalent description of the bending of light in a gravitational field -- all that is part of mainstream theory:
It is has been long known that the curved space in the presence of gravitation can be described as a non-homogeneous anisotropic medium in flat geometry with different constitutive equations.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0728
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby silvanelf » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:20 am

Roshi wrote:Simple experiment with a light in a long vacuum tube, on Earth, should confirm this once and for al.
https://lacosmo.com/DeflectionOfLight/index.html
If the Sun bends light by 1.75'', then the Earth should also bend light by a value that should be measurable.

Of course it will never be done, asking today if relativity is true is like asking if the Earth is round in the middle ages.

That's a flawed argument, we don't look at the earth from far away. Furthermore the mass of the earth is much smaller than the mass of the sun.

Roshi wrote:Question: why doesn't the bending angle also depend on the radius of the object that bends the light? It makes no sense.

It makes a lot of sense. We can approximate the gravitational field of the sun as the field of a point-like source, that's the reason.
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:33 am

silvanelf wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: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.


How do you know that there is no bending of light around Sagittarius A* ?
Furthermore, gravitational lensing is just a consequence of the bending of light by a gravitational field. According to your statement, the bending of light by gravity should be garbage.

The important keyword here is "the opacity of the region around Sagittarius A*":
Bearing in mind the opacity the region around Sagittarius A* our only hope of seeing lensing is if one of the orbiting stars passes behind the the black hole and is lensed, but the expected deflection of the light is too small to be measured by the kit we currently have available. However, as the paper describes, we expect the GRAVITY telescope to be accurate enough to detect the lensing.

source: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210101/gravitational-lensing-by-sagittarius-a-in-the-center-of-the-milky-way
Do you realise how far away from the gravitational centre the light that we see in the ring is? Take a guess. It's must be hundreds of thousands if not millions of light years distant, yet you trust that light needs be right behind Sagittarius A to have an effect that close? If Sagittarius A can theoretically bend light thousands of light years away it should destroy the pathway of light just mere light hours/days away.

Gravitational lensing = Total garbage.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby celeste » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:24 pm

silvanelf wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: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.


How do you know that there is no bending of light around Sagittarius A* ?
Furthermore, gravitational lensing is just a consequence of the bending of light by a gravitational field. According to your statement, the bending of light by gravity should be garbage.

The important keyword here is "the opacity of the region around Sagittarius A*":
Bearing in mind the opacity the region around Sagittarius A* our only hope of seeing lensing is if one of the orbiting stars passes behind the the black hole and is lensed, but the expected deflection of the light is too small to be measured by the kit we currently have available. However, as the paper describes, we expect the GRAVITY telescope to be accurate enough to detect the lensing.

source: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/210101/gravitational-lensing-by-sagittarius-a-in-the-center-of-the-milky-way


The fact that we can track orbits around the center of the galaxy, and match them to gravity only orbits, means there can not be gravitational bending of light in this central region. It is that simple. If an object passed behind the center of the galaxy, and there was a light bending by gravitational mass there, it would show up as a “ glitch” in the orbital velocity of an object passing behind the black hole. Specifically, we would observe a “slowing” of the object as it passed behind the black hole, and an “acceleration” out the other side.

The fact that there IS bending of light near the sun’s surface, and near the Pleiades ( Showing up as parallax errors in the “Pleiades distance problem”), means we DO have light bending in space, but it is absolutely not directly proportional to the mass there.

We need, as Edward Dowdye jr explained, both a gravitational field ( whatever that means), and plasma, to explain the bending of light.
celeste
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:09 pm

celeste wrote: a gravitational field ( whatever that means)

Indeed... A defined space in which the effects of gravitation may be observed and measured by the interaction of contained objects -- ie. the universe, at every level or hierarchy.
Gravitation, as the patriarchs of science understood, is the propensity of stuff in the universe [and by extension, the universe itself] to stick together. No doubt it is an electrical action as well as a stellar one. And the best models for gravitation are geometric. Sticking together is a colloquialism for compression, or pressure, so it is apt to describe gravitational action with vectors. Visualizing gravitation as pressure, rather than as imagined gravitons or waves, directs us to consider ray diagrams to describe the interactions of moving bodies, as in orbital vectors, voltage and charge, "current", Poynting vectors, etc.; leading to the recognition that optical ray diagrams are also representing [a part of] the bigger picture of the UNIverse. Unifying the various "gravitational" pressures through geometry leads to a satisfying, though not yet complete, therefore challenging pursuit of a theory of everything without recourse to phantasmic black holes, WIMPS, probabilistic uncertainties/dualisms or transformations [Lorentz. et.al.], warpage of space and time, etc. ... just rambling... ;)
Centropic Pressure Field Theory :?:
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 moses » Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:08 pm

What if galaies are orders of magnitude closer than we think. Then Einstein rings would be the result of a much greater bending that we think. Thus there would be much greater bending of light heading towards our galaxy or towards our Sun than we think.

Much greater bending of light coming towards our Sun would affect parallax measurements and so nearby stars would be orders of magnitude closer that what we supposedly measure. Thus all stars would be orders of magnitude closer and all galaxies would be orders of magnitude closer.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Unread postby webolife » Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:07 pm

:(
Last edited by webolife on Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby webolife » Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:10 pm

Hey Mo,
If you consider the perspective of optics, a closer "lensing" phenomenon would have equal bending angles to the "more distant" scenario, due to the geometry of similarity. the greater bending angle is a non sequitur... however your musings about the closeness of objects in our universe is very pertinent when one considers the possibility [even likelihood] that redshift is not the indicator of distance due to Hubble formulations. This greatly impacts mass calculations and the gravitational effects attributed by mainstreamers to galactic and super-galactic cores, black holes and the like. All of those imaginary "monsters" are the direct [illegitimate?] offspring of the Hubble redshift presumption.
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 moses » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:01 pm

G'day webo,
the whole point is that there is a standard amount of bending that the mainstream adhere to. It is not hard to consider that this is wrong and in fact there is a whole lot more bending of light than that.

Celeste seems to indicate this about the Pleiades distance measurement. I think celeste is saying that the light from distant stars is bent coming past the Pleiades stars. Thus much more bending that that expected by mainstream astronomers. I could be wrong.

If there is more bending of light then all star distance measurements are rubbish.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: "gravitational" lensing

Unread postby MotionTheory » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:44 am

Whilst we easily agreed on none-existence of perpetual motion machines in our observable universe. And ofcourse flatly rejected - perpetual energy machines(PEM)! Rational & analytics we!

Thus, it is irrational & absurd to hypothesize existence of PEMs: Gravity and Negative Electric+Magnetic Fields as PEM (forever suck), Positive electric & magnetic PEM (forever blow). Gravitational lensing and other affects are derivatives of incorrect assumption/model.

Talking about Gravitational Lensing is analogous to analyzing surface erosion, where gravity is equivalent to precipitation, while surely don't know what fall/precipitate? and obviously ignorance about the rest of the water cycle https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/water-cycle

I am trying to come up with experiments to demonstrate geometry of countered pressure system, where gravity (commonly referred) is just about 1/4 of a complete system. Without a lab with high precision instruments & setup, progress has been slow and could cease (power of 1 :D), nevertheless here is my levitating steel_wool (ferromagnetic): https://i.imgur.com/cW5xMTp.jpg. *water surface is referencing to earth gravity; white block is just a chunk of plastic (syringe push rod) got pushed up with steel wool. Pic is fairly high res, so zoom in to see steel fibers.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests