Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Some examples of gravitational lensing

Sisu care to suggest who faked these images and why?

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

 

Never been addicted so couldn't comment on how difficult it must be to stop, but seeing people I have worked with struggle and lapse it must be difficult. Inhaling hot smoke however safe you feel it my be can't be good for anyone

 

I thought you believed that the LHC technology/investment of time and brainpower should be focuses on assembling atomic nuclei.

The LHC helps to understand the building blocks. However I will pre counter your upcoming comment by stating to assemble you must smash and discover the building blocks.

 

aka alchemy

Assuming you could create 1 atom of whatever you want every second, then if you want for example 1g of gold (worth about £22) it would take you about 7000 times the age of the universe to do so

 

Newton spent a large part of his research time looking into alchemy or pseudoscience to give it a more technical term

 

I am aware that there is a few and I mean a few examples of Einstein rings but again a 15 year study showed no such phenomenon in our own galaxy. How exactly do we know the few examples we have, as you showed a few pictures out of the entirety of what we can see in the sky.

You see that as a bending light, I see light in a ring, there is a difference. Given astrophysics doesn't include plasma physics and plasma physics has explanations for such things, it's a one sided interpretation. And it is interpretation, there's no getting around that.

But that is an unproveable point for either argument, and it is certainly not a strong one for Relativity, it's an old chestnut with more than one explanation, you're aware of one I'm aware of two maybe three, a bit vague, beed a while since I covered these.

I keep having to cite that 15 year NASA study on stars orbiting an alleged supermassive black hole, there was no such effects, none. You think the pictures are more valid than the study, the study finding as usual with fixed views, will be "mysterious" and "unexplained" and not brought to the fore as casting doubt on mainstream theory, but it is evidence to the contrary all the same.

Molecular inactive or active plasma can also collect and refract light

Tell me this, when youm get to metal plates and place them close together to the point where they close the last of the gap themselves, is that space time curvature that does that or force? I'll give you a clue, it's not space time curving.

What I find totally contradicting is Relativity does not deal with forces, yet gravity is a force.

Forces are what we can physically interact with, space time is a thoery to explain it, it certainly isn't beyond the theoretical. I aint even saying yes 100% its wrong wrong wrong, not at all, after another year or whatever I find myself I've been on the wrong track, but I learned a lot in the process.

 

To make a point about Einstein rings
The difference here is we can scientifically show exactly what a sun dog is.
This looks more convincing for relativity than your space pictures

please log in to view this image

Just like our eyes cant see the light refracting we just see the ring, the telescopes see the effect but can't actually see the process.

#theory

 

I thought classical (Newtonian) mechanics predicted gravitational lensing anyway-before Einstein got his mitts on it?

 

Yet another Sisu theory based on "something looks a bit like something else and I won't give any real details but the currently accepted successful theory is definitely wrong"

Sun dogs have nothing to do with gravitational lensing which I expect you know, so can you explain the mechanism that is responsible (and ideally calculate how big this mechanism predicts the effect should be), other than vaguely saying "plasma physics"

Depends on your model of light. As a massless wave then no. If you assume light is a particle with mass then you get lensing but the amount is wrong by a factor of 2.

 

"

Sun dogs have nothing to do with gravitational lensing which I expect you know, so can you explain the mechanism that is responsible (and ideally calculate how big this mechanism predicts the effect should be), other than vaguely saying "plasma physics"
"
You know damn well that my point is that refraction of light by matter not visible can create the appearance of curved light in our own atmphpere, and yet you think this cannot happen in the region between our telescopes and the objects imaged millions of lighyears away. But that is rational thinking, not your forte.

For a "science type" you ake a lot of false arguments and inaccurate parapharases, you must be some data analyst or statistician and not an actual scientist? If you are a scientist it explains a lot actually, especially about climate science, cos if they apprach science like you do..

Do you know anything about plasma physics? I assumed given you are regurgitating relativity (not discussing it) you have not been exposed to the science, it's not a 3 minute subject. If you do we can go beyond referencing another scientific disciple that deals with cosmology and unlike your relativity, plasma phycsics can replicate much of what we see the lab, I can do that, but you will ignore it all and call it a meltdown, because you are into sciencing it up yes



Now let me explain your own cognitive dissonance. You seem to not understand what you are talking about.

Relativity says no gravitational force and attraction at a distance. It says space time.
Newton's Laws say Gravitational force and attraction at a distance.

So you relativists just jump magically from one to the other all while pretending they are not conflicting. In fact you go as far as to say they are the same

Newton says the gravitational force OF BOTH MASSES pulls the apple to the ground.

Einstein says space time curvature makes the apple follow spacetime curvature.

If you think they are the same you are a fool

Quantum physics will never be reconciled with Relativity because of the limit of the speed of light, it's literally holding back science

 

Of course Newton's law and relativity are different and conflicting. Newton's law is ultimately wrong but a good enough approximation for many cases. Science isn't about always using the most perfect and complicated model but the model that is as simple as possible while giving accurate results.

Sun dogs is caused by a specific mechanism that relies on an atmosphere with ice crystals and obviously does't apply in space. I asked you for the mechanism that would apply. Once again you gave zero details. It's a great religion you have there. I ask you for what causes the refraction and you reply with "something like refraction in our atmosphere, but not that because there is no atmosphere in space, but definitely not gravity I am complely sure about that part". And of course no actual predictions for the amount of refraction your unnamed mechanism would produce.

 

"
Of course Newton's law and relativity are different and conflicting. Newton's law is ultimately wrong but a good enough approximation for many cases. Science isn't about always using the most perfect and complicated model but the model that is as simple as possible while giving accurate results."

Model not reality and also, the theories directly contradict each other on the key points. You said yourself space time is "gravity and force" when they contradict each other.


According to Einstein, if light travels across warped space time the light will be distorted, which means that the moon should have a perceivable effect aroud it as it's mass warps space time, remember space time has nothing to do with force, it is like the surface of a road, the light will go upand down the bumbs, force does not come into it.

But.. you say it is the force that pulls the light, Newtonian force, but ONLY enough force, which means if translated to relativity, that space time curvature only bends light if it is warped enough, which is not what Relativity actually states. All matter and energy must traverse space time, so your nonsense doesn't add up, nor than you rationally think about hte problem, I dare say you never think about the problem actually, cos you are 100% sold.
Your theory is contradicting itself

A real scientist tries to beak their theory not just incessantly trying to prove it.


Again the silly distinction between a sun dog and light refraction by multiple possible causes in space. I am merely making a point, the sundog is irrelevant for all your pretence, after you looked it up, something you claim you never do Refraction of light is the point, surely you can understand that?!

You posted what? 4? examples of what COULD be light bending.
Where is the bending light here, because if Einstein was right, then the distortion in this image should be immense. Where is what shouold be almost incalcuable distortion of light here

please log in to view this image

So much for your 4 pictures out of how many stars in the universe?

 

No I didn't

You are the only one claiming it should be perceivable. Relativity predicts the effect would be too small for us to detect. Lensing is seen by galaxies bending light across intergalactic distances. The fact the moon or your toaster doesn't create an observable effect is perfectly consistent with the calculations. Of course your "calculations" presumably also explain everything because you refuse to show them.

None of this makes any sense

OK so now stop making your point, and now explain the actual mechanism reposnsible for the refraction. It's something to do with plasma right? What kind of plasma? What temperature? What density or volume do you need to produce the amount of refraction observed? Do you predict any effects that are different to what relativity predicts which could confirm your theory? Any dispersion? Any absorption lines associated with the plasma? Any details at all?

 

Seeing as you dont know anything about plsamsa physics, how do you discount something you have not quantified?

#youarenotascientist

and stop referring to science the institution (that you deem pure) as if you are talking about science the method. Not the same thing.

plasma ring experiment, looks a whole lot like your einstein ring to me from a side view

please log in to view this image

Video of this here, done in the lab. They are looking to harness what happens in space with plasma and magnetic fields which are immense around stars.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...g-experiment-offers-new-path-for-fusion-power

 

Oh and you didn't say they were the same thing

what is that then
#really

 

Astro you dont understand enough about relativity and Newton to know wtf you are talking about and you are arguing from what you are reading not what you are thinking.

It's so ****ing obvious

You say you dont know what something means because you dont have an asnwer?, that's a criticism of yourself, yet you think it is a croticism of me

Whereas I have no actual textbook definitions to go on, and you have your text book definitions and mainstream theory, you jusr regurgitate, you have not actually explained anything I have presented, you have regurgitated the same stuff I question over and over.

You abuse scientific inquiry by conflating Newtona nd Einstein to muddy the waters and claimed gravityational force and space time curvature are the same thing

No they are not and never were.

Light either bends on curved space time or it bends by a force, it cannot be both for the reasons I stated that you pretend to not understand.

To avoid this conundrum, you claimed theyt are the same thing, now you deny you said that.

Lets not forget you keep going over old arguments, you said yesterday "what about GPS" GPS started this whole debate, which led you to Muons and Lightclocks, remember? Remember the ownage?

Now you are back at GPS again. You've gone over einstein rings, I blew that away a year ago on this thread ffs.

Relativism is a fantasy, an interesting one but one none the less.

Now, what bends light force or space time curvature? They are NOT the same thing.

 

Now if you dont mind, I hate spending ages on this at the weekends, wasted time. will be back tomorrow

 

One might ask, why is there not so much light scatter and defusion and distortion in this image. Is it explained away by 4 examples of possible light diostortion? ****ing hardly

please log in to view this image

Knd of ignored explaining this with relativity. With my way, no explanation is needed. Light does not "bend" in the vacuum of space without some interacting matter to refract it.

Gravitational force cannot affect light as it has no mass if Gravity is Newton's gravity, but if we are talking Einstein EVERY MASS should have an effect on light as it passes.

Now I'm done till tomorrow, get reading lass

 

Why isn't the moon producing a 'dog' @astro

 

I am cleverer than anyone else on these board. you lot are ignorant fools that beleive what the scientists tell you, whereas I am special and know the truth about everything becuase of all the reading I have done.

There is no point asking me about this as you will need to complete thousands of hours research to even make it worthwhile me answering.