Gravitational Lenses and Observations

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AN....328..186D

Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity

There is convincing observational evidence that a direct interaction between light and gravitation is yet to be observed. Historically, the observed evidence of light bending occured predominantly near the plasma rim of the sun, not in the vacuum space far above the rim.

interesting read...

also some great reads on the double slit paradox from that site

The Ad-hom conservatives should probably have a squiz here: http://www.extinctionshift.com/author.htm

[renormalised (Carl)]

Very interesting.

[bojan]

Einstein's rings ?
Microlensing and discovery of extrasolar planets?
Just a two that comes to my mind.... I am sure others will come up with much longer list.

Once I knew a guy who was very clever... published a lot in area of theoretical physics.. then he went crackpot. Ended up in mental hospital, despite all his academic references.... paranoia and schizophrenia

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Einstein's rings ?
Microlensing and discovery of extrasolar planets?
Just a two that comes to my mind.... I am sure others will come up with much longer list.

Once I knew a guy who was very clever... published a lot in area of theoretical physics.. then he went crackpot. Ended up in mental hospital, despite all his academic references....

It's well worth reading the material, as what you have mentioned so far is thoroughly discussed...

another nice irrelevant adhom... sigh

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

another nice irrelevant adhom... sigh

Yes.. nobody understand your points..
That is the beginning

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Just letting you know that the difficulties you have raised are exactly what is covered in this material.

re the adhom, i'm sure the 'guy' you knew is a nice bloke, i'm just saying he is probably not this guy, who is currently building laser equipment and satellites at Goddard space flight center.... ie someone whos job it is to ensure scientific accuracy of empirical measurements of light itself...

The point here is irrelevant adhom attacks can be a tool used by conservatives to distract from the science...

anyways.. the content is there.. i found the content interesting and relevant to this forum... just want to highlight where adhoms can have an insulating effect on science, especially when constructed in the irrelevant way you have done.

http://www.extinctionshift.com/lensing_animate.gif
(in a nutshell for ya...)

[Coen]

Ad-hominem: http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/adhom.html

The jump to the relationship "I knew a guy who was brilliant but..." can be construed as ad-hominem as how is it relevant to the topic of discussion except as an implied potential link to the mental state of the author (by association) so the work can then be dismissed rather than discussed.

The abstract is interesting, the journal is peer reviewed and prestigious: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...formation.html (no guarantee that everything is perfect but certainly helps limit nonsense).

I can not readily get to the underlying article so can not comment further.

Observations are observations, theory is theory, we try and match the two but of the two observations are what is kept if one is not lining up with the other. For example, just as Newtonian view of gravity is pretty good most of the time, so might be the case for relativity. Prior to Kepler there was a way of describing the orbits by many circles - still possible but not as simple or elegant as ellipses and then gravity to explain why ellipses. What helped all this were observations, e.g. Tycho & others.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Einstein's rings ?
Microlensing and discovery of extrasolar planets?

Yes, and I can think of a few others, but is that what we are seeing and do we really understand what we are seeing?? Just because we see something and it can be explained by what we feel is the correct theory for why it happens, doesn't mean that we are actually correct in what we are saying is happening. What if there is an equally possible, but different, explanation. It has to be tested, yes, but what if that new explanation turns out to be as rigorous in its testing and can be proven. Which idea do you then use??? Do you throw one out in favour of another or do you create a synthesis of both ideas and then test that??.

We may think we know and understand a lot, but we actually know less than what we believe we do.

Let's test these new ideas, instead of trying to dismiss them because we think we know what's going on.

[rally]

Thanks Alex.

A most interesting concept and explanation.
Is there a publicly accessible version anywhere ?

Cheers

Rally

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

I've been unable to locate the paper, i'd imagine since it's been published in that professional journal, it'll be a few more years before it's released publicly, and i can't track down a pre-published version... let me know if you do.

This page (from the authors site) gives a great run down, along with animations, including the observations measured around Sag A.

http://www.extinctionshift.com/topic_07.htm

[sjastro]

What I found interesting about the article http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm is the misinterpretation of GR by attempting to explain it from a "plasma physics" perspective.

The author uses Gauss' law of gravity (which is the gravity variant of Gauss' general laws for electromagnetism) to explain the bending of light.
In essence a particle is deflected in a gravitational field by a force exerted on the particle much like a charged particle is deflected in an external electric field.
There is one little problem however, photons have no mass. Hence a photon cannot be deflected by applying Gauss' law of gravity irrespective of how close the photon is to the source.
In GR the bending of light is through the scalar gravitational potentials of the field (space-time curvature) instead of the vector gravitational field itself as is implied through Gauss' law.

Then there is the argument that the lack of evidence of gravitational lensing around the supermassive black hole Sagattarius A* supports the view that there is an inconsistancy between lensing and GR.
From a GR persepctive there is no such problem.
For a photon to be observed it needs to be beyond the event horizon of the black hole.
The radius of the event horizon is directly proportional to the mass of the black hole. For a supermassive black hole of several million solar masses such as Sagittarius A*, the event horizon is so far away from the centre of the black hole that space-time is quite flat in the vicinity of the horizon. Hence the bending of light even grazing the horizon may not be apparent.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

misinterpretation of GR by attempting to explain it

The author makes particular comment on exactly this SJ...Did you read all the material? You are suggesting a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of GR's equations for the subject matter, when it's in the title of the peer reviewed journal... Although possible, I doubt this would've gotten through Astronomische Nachrichten.

Particularly interesting is the common misapplication of GR bending of light equations, when interpreting astrophysical events. The author goes on to mention "Ray Geometry Technique for Gravitational Lensing". http://www.extinctionshift.com/Signi...Findings07.htm

As far as his emission 'theory', this would seem to secondary to the observations conflicting 'observations' reported in the journal.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

The author makes particular comment on exactly this SJ...Did you read all the material? You are suggesting a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of GR's equations for the subject matter, when it's in the title of the peer reviewed journal... Although possible, I doubt this would've gotten through Astronomische Nachrichten.

To suggest that peer review is a confirmation of the "correctness" of a journal......
" There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print." Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association.

Plasma and mainstream cosmology involve the publication of peer reviewed journals yet both cannot be right.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

To suggest that peer review is a confirmation of the "correctness" of a journal

easy now, I merely made the point that you suggested a fundamental error on the author's GR math. To me (yep i read the material), he directly commented on the GR math derivations, which you dismissed the author on?

Yes, I also would think that fundamental GR math would be fairly well understood by the peer review process of this particular journal (the oldest in existence).... but that's irrelevant, as the above point still holds. The author is aware of mathematical GR predictions, as it is the subject of the paper, and is directly mentioned in the content of his site.

Plasma and mainstream cosmology involve the publication of peer reviewed journals yet both cannot be right.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

However, i'm not arguing theories, just alerting to observations, which i found interesting when trying to assess validity of either.

I just found your previous post a little dismissive and based on misapplication of GR fundamentals, i thought you may not have actually read the content, so i just pointed out the part where the GR maths were applied, i'd be interested on comments on this.

You've now moved away from specifics GR fundamentals of the science, into a vague dismissal based on what gets printed in what journal.

I'm not interested in this.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

easy now, I merely made the point that you suggested a fundamental error on the author's GR math. To me (yep i read the material), he directly commented on the GR math derivations, which you dismissed the author on?

Yes, I also would think that fundamental GR math would be fairly well understood by the peer review process of this particular journal (the oldest in existence).... but that's irrelevant, as the above point still holds. The author is aware of mathematical GR predictions, as it is the subject of the paper, and is directly mentioned in the content of his site.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

However, i'm not arguing theories, just alerting to observations, which i found interesting when trying to assess validity of either.

I just found your previous post a little dismissive and based on misapplication of GR fundamentals, i thought you may not have actually read the content, so i just pointed out the part where the GR maths were applied, i'd be interested on comments on this.

You've now moved away from specifics GR fundamentals of the science, into a vague dismissal based on what gets printed in what journal.

I'm not interested in this.

Evidently you have failed to comprehend my first post.

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

I fail to comprehend how the content does not already address your post.

I acknowledge the differences in gradients as you have described, but that is exactly what is derived here?

Researchers utilizing this tool seek an alternative simplification for the application of the cumbersome light bending rule of General Relative and may or may not be thoroughly familiar with the basic principle of light bending of General Relativity given by the equation

(1) http://www.extinctionshift.com/EquaGRtheta.gif

derived using General Relativity considerations! The geometry as well as the Physics of conservation of energy, the Physics of the minimum energy path, minimum time and the principle of reciprocity must all be considered for any correct interpretation of the astrophysical events.

From the above Figure, "Ray Geometry Technique for Gravitational Lensing", the angle

(2)

is derived. It is readily see that, as the source approaches the vicinity of the gravitational lens, where the adjustable parameter Dds is the distance between the source and the lens and Ds = 26,000 light years, the distance between the observer and the source, the lensing estimated by this equation (2), a modification of (1), approaches a very small value (approaches zero). This suggests incorrectly that the lensing effect described by (2) is minimized for sources in proximity to the gravitating mass, the lens.

It is important to note and recall that the principle of light bending of General Relativity given by Equation (1) and the Ray Geometry Technique for Gravitational Lensing given by Equation (2) are not the same equations, the main subject of the published paper.

The stellar sky presents vast opportunities to modern Astronomy and Astrophysics to allow for the detection of lensing events due to the large numbers of stellar objects that just happen to be positioned in a near perfect line-of-site to the earth based observers; again of course, assuming the validity of the light bending rule of General Relativity. With this in mind the entire celestial sky should be full of Einstein-rings.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

I fail to comprehend how the content does not already address your post.

I acknowledge the differences in gradients as you have described, but that is exactly what is derived here?
"Researchers utilizing this tool seek an alternative simplification for the application of the cumbersome light bending rule of General Relative and may or may not be thoroughly familiar with the basic principle of light bending of General Relativity given by the equation

(1) http://www.extinctionshift.com/EquaGRtheta.gif

derived using General Relativity considerations! The geometry as well as the Physics of conservation of energy, the Physics of the minimum energy path, minimum time and the principle of reciprocity must all be considered for any correct interpretation of the astrophysical events."

He hasn't derived the equation from GR at all.

The "xi" term in the denominater of the equation is not the radius R of the star. If it was it would correspond to the GR equation of light grazing the limb of the star. The "xi" term has no meaning in GR.

This is the whole point of my first post. He is not using GR but Newtonian gravity based on Gauss' law. This is not shades of grey but black and white.

Steven

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Alex where do you find this tosh? If you want to post weird science stuff there is plenty of web sites for this. As I said in your first set of post, some things only deserved to be laughed at. Alex before you post stuff like this, try poking holes in it yourself. try asking yourself some basic questions like what observations does the current theory not explain? does the author make reasonable representation of the predictions of the current theory? and so on. I'll give you a hint on this one try door number two for a start.
Then listen to Steven he's telling you about door number one. hes got more time to waste.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

He hasn't derived the equation from GR at all.

The "xi" term in the denominater of the equation is not the radius R of the star. If it was it would correspond to the GR equation of light grazing the limb of the star. The "xi" term has no meaning in GR.

This is the whole point of my first post. He is not using GR but Newtonian gravity based on Gauss' law. This is not shades of grey but black and white.

Steven

Is he not describing the distance r from the gravitational center? The gaussian sphere.

http://www.extinctionshift.com/solar_bend.gif
Figure 1A illustrates a hypothetical constant but shrinking mass enclosed inside of an analytical Gaussian sphere. Gauss' Law states that the flux of the gravitational field through the Gaussian surface for a given constant mass enclosed, regardless of the size or radius of the enclosed mass sphere, is constant.

The actual radius of the sun's plasma surface is irrelevant here? The Gaussian sphere is referring to Gauss Law gravitational sphere?
http://www.extinctionshift.com/GaussLaw.gif

Is this not exactly what is used in gravitational lense theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...time_curvature

To produce these simulations: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ensing_web.gif

You are suggesting the gradient is incredibly steep, due to photons only interacting incredibly close the event horizon of a BH. If the geometry you are suggesting here is the correct interpretation, how does an irregularly shaped cluster of galaxies produce a round-ish 'gravitational lense'.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ell-lins-4.jpg

(we are told to believe this is a gravitational lense)

I see a contradiction of both explanations here SJ...

Either
(1) You are correct, photons only change course very close to the event horizon.
In this case, a cluster of galaxies would not produce a round lense, it would be a far sharper - irregular lense. The above galaxy cluster lense is not a 'your-interpretation' lense... Your geometrical interpretation should produce multiple lenses, not 1 large spherical lense.

or (2) The gauss-law sphere approach is correct, and photons change course according to Gauss sphere, in this case the cluster of galaxies could round out to a sphere... ok.. but then we should see evidence of gauss-like lenses everywhere... and we don't.

Which one is it?

I'm sorry but the lense-photos, i'm told to believe and the two geometric models suggested, 1 by you, the other by this material, do not agree each other.

Regards,

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Is he not describing the distance r from the gravitational center? The gaussian sphere.

The actual radius of the sun's plasma surface is irrelevant here? The Gaussian sphere is referring to Gauss Law gravitational sphere?
http://www.extinctionshift.com/GaussLaw.gif

Gaussian spheres don't exist in GR.

Using your own terminology they are hypotheticals used in Newtonian theory. Think of lines radiating outwards from a point source. The lines represent the gravitational field. If you draw a circle with the point source at the centre, the intersection of the lines with the circle of radius R, represents the force on a particle with mass at a distance R from the point source. The larger the circle the more the lines are spread out and the less the force on the particle.

Gaussian spheres are a pictorial representation for the mathematics behind Gauss' law.

Is this not exactly what is used in gravitational lense theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...time_curvature

No it's completely different. Light travels along a what is known as a null geodesic path in space time which is the shortest distance between two points in any space time geometry. Any particle that travels along a geodesic path is not subjected to external forces.

As I have stated numerous times the model presented relies on photons being deflected in the field by a force. This is a Newtonian model not a GR model and deflection can only occur if photons have mass.

You are suggesting the gradient is incredibly steep, due to photons only interacting incredibly close the event horizon of a BH. If the geometry you are suggesting here is the correct interpretation, how does an irregularly shaped cluster of galaxies produce a round-ish 'gravitational lense'.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ell-lins-4.jpg

(we are told to believe this is a gravitational lense)

I see a contradiction of both explanations here SJ...

Either
(1) You are correct, photons only change course very close to the event horizon.
In this case, a cluster of galaxies would not produce a round lense, it would be a far sharper - irregular lense. The above galaxy cluster lense is not a 'your-interpretation' lense... Your geometrical interpretation should produce multiple lenses, not 1 large spherical lense.

or (2) The gauss-law sphere approach is correct, and photons change course according to Gauss sphere, in this case the cluster of galaxies could round out to a sphere... ok.. but then we should see evidence of gauss-like lenses everywhere... and we don't.

Which one is it?

You seem to have forgotten one important point Alex.
Gaussian spheres are modelled for a single foreground object that causes the lensing of a background objects.
So you can eliminate point (2).

The cluster itself is causing the lensing of background objects and is due to space time curvature. The "effectiveness" of the lens is very much dependant on the geometrical arrangement of the galaxies in the cluster.

Regards

Steven