PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Near Perfect "Einstein Ring" ...



Fraser
2005-Apr-29, 05:53 PM
SUMMARY: Gravitational lensing happens when the gravity of a relatively close galaxy acts as a telescope lens to focus the light from a more distant galaxy. It allows astronomers to see distant objects they could never have a hope of observing with current instruments, essentially looking back to moments after the Big Bang (cosmically speaking). The galaxies are never perfectly lined up, though, and the "natural telescope" is a bit blurry. But now astronomer Remi Cabanac has found one of the most complete lenses ever discovered: a near perfect Einstein Ring, magnifying a distant galaxy with incredible clarity.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/perfect_einstein_ring.html)

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

om@umr.edu
2005-Apr-29, 05:59 PM
This Einstein Ring has great promise for providing new information on the early universe.

Remi Cabanac points that "It will give us unique information on the physical conditions prevailing in the interstellar medium when the universe was only 12% of its present age."

We all look forward to seeing those results.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

The Near-Sighted Astronomer
2005-Apr-29, 06:56 PM
It was a joy to write this article Remi was very responsive to my request for information regarding the particulars of the discovery. There is something very exciting about such events and i felt honored to have the opportunity to see Remi and his team's work publicized to a wider audience.

jeff

biknewb
2005-Apr-29, 08:18 PM
Something I may not understand correctly is the amplification of the source by the lens. To me it looks more like distortion than amplification. The background object doesn't look bigger, just more circle shaped. How is it amplified then?

regards

antoniseb
2005-Apr-29, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by biknewb@Apr 29 2005, 08:18 PM
To me it looks more like distortion than amplification.
It certainly IS a distortion, though it also amplifies the brightness significantly.
Another thing it does is tell us with farily great precision what the mass of the intervening galaxy is (presuming that you agree that red-shift closely correlates to distance).

imported_Harald
2005-Apr-29, 08:25 PM
I am quite convinced that Einstein's theories about space and time are complete nonsense. :angry:

The fact that the direction of light movement can be affected by gravity says nothing about the nature of space and time. Light can be broken by glass, so why not also by gravity? :angry:

It is also rubbish that we today are using his principles. How could we, because they are wrong! When his predictions - what almost always the case - were not verified, his followers invented new special laws to explain the differences. For instance take the twin-paradox. We now know that both relative systems are completely equal. So there would be no possibility how one of them could be older than the other by the time of his return. So they simply held that it was the acceleration at the point of changing direction. Apart from the fact that Einstein never had talked about that before, this would be no possible explanation because the acceleration would be very short and therefore would have almost no effect, even when following the relativistic standpoint. :angry:

Even from the maths point of view his equations have proven to be wrong. He didn't even know that you cannot divide through zero. And then his equations under special circumstances would allow a negativ time, which is also complete nonsense. There are still plenty of other things I did't mention. But it would take too long to mention them all here. :angry:

antoniseb
2005-Apr-29, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Harald@Apr 29 2005, 08:25 PM
I am quite convinced that Einstein's theories about space and time are complete nonsense.
Hi Harald,

Welcome to the UT forum. I think you will probably find your belief that all of Einstein's theories are COMPLETE rubbish to be a hard sell around here, but welcome anyway.

The Near-Sighted Astronomer
2005-Apr-29, 09:09 PM
On the twins thing (this is off-thread of course) time dilitation occurs because biological (and other behaviors) are driven by energy and energy is lost at relativistic speeds (because internally emitted waveforms are stretched out). As energy levels drop, so does the rate of change of the organism - thus time slows and at the speed of light one's metabolism becomes static...

As for validation I could make up any theory i want and if it covers all the known facts then predicts something unexpected that is later confirmed, then my theory is better than the one that preceded it EVEN if i made a few mistakes in detail along the way.

(And yes you can divide by zero as long as your result is infinity... Not encouraged by most mathematicians however!)

The Near-Sighted Astronomer
2005-Apr-29, 09:14 PM
BTW: if you've ever collimated a telescope you will see the kinds of distortions present in FORS 0332 whenever optical elements are not aligned - this is in fact the case using gravitational lenses too. We are not perfectly "on-axis" with the light cone from the intervening galaxy so we see a distorted image... There are also distortions induced by intervening masses and the way mass is distributed in the lensing galaxy and luminosity in the source galaxy.

Nereid
2005-Apr-30, 01:06 AM
I am quite convinced that Einstein's theories about space and time are complete nonsense. mad.gifAnd I am convinced that you are a complete nutter - surely the important thing is how well do {anyone's} convictions match good observational and experimental results? Or do you have an alternative proposal for making decisions?
The fact that the direction of light movement can be affected by gravity says nothing about the nature of space and time. Light can be broken by glass, so why not also by gravity? mad.gifOK, but does this statement have any bearing on the observation being reported here?
It is also rubbish that we today are using his principles. How could we, because they are wrong!
Hmm, OK, so can you give us all some references to peer-reviewed papers you (or others) have published where these 'mistakes' are outlined?
When his predictions - what almost always the case - were not verified, his followers invented new special laws to explain the differences.And I can claim that by dancing naked under the traffic lights near my local corner store, in the early hours of the morning when the Moon is near full, I have saved my community from a deadly invasion by pink heffalumps!

Would you be so kind to let us know in which respect Clifford Will (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html) errs in his exhaustive review of tests of GR? Please be as specific as you can.
For instance take the twin-paradox. We now know that both relative systems are completely equal. So there would be no possibility how one of them could be older than the other by the time of his return. So they simply held that it was the acceleration at the point of changing direction. Apart from the fact that Einstein never had talked about that before, this would be no possible explanation because the acceleration would be very short and therefore would have almost no effect, even when following the relativistic standpoint. mad.gifWould you be open to the suggestion that you have misunderstood 'the twin paradox'? If so, I'd be happy to provide you with references to material which describe this in sufficient detail so that you may understand where your misunderstanding lies.
Even from the maths point of view his equations have proven to be wrong.Details, please!
He didn't even know that you cannot divide through zero. And then his equations under special circumstances would allow a negativ time, which is also complete nonsense. There are still plenty of other things I did't mention. But it would take too long to mention them all here. mad.gifIndeed.

If Einstein had made, as you claim, such elementary errors in his use of basic math, a simple expose would be possible, would it not? One wouldn't need hundreds of pages of densely reasoned math, perhaps only a page or two would suffice, would it not? Could you be kind enough to give us a link to a peer-reviewed paper which lays bare these elementary errors in Einstein's math?

biknewb
2005-Apr-30, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by The Near-Sighted Astronomer@Apr 29 2005, 10:14 PM
BTW: if you've ever collimated a telescope you will see the kinds of distortions present in FORS 0332 whenever optical elements are not aligned - this is in fact the case using gravitational lenses too.
Comparing optical to gravitational lenses is tricky. Collimating a telescope is like focusing a camera lens. An unsharp image of a light point reveals the shape of the diafragm: a hexagon in most film camera's and a ring in case of a mirror telescope. Sports photographers often use mirror telescopes, the blurred parts of those pictures reveal ring-like structures.

An optical analogy of a gravitational lens, would be a tube with a mirroring inside and a black circle in the middle leaving a ring to see through. Looking through this contraption one would see the object indirectly and distorted in the mirroring walls.
The direct image of a gravitational lens will need extensive recalculation before it will tell us anything about what shapes we "see".
Funny thing is that by this analogy the famous Einstein cross does not look like a gravitational lens to me.

The Near-Sighted Astronomer
2005-Apr-30, 04:09 PM
Einstein's cross is interpreted as several (4 or 5) microlensing masses whereas FORS 0332 is lensed by an entire galactic halo as a rough unity.

The difference between a telescope lens and a gravitational lens is such that in a telescope lens the light comes to focal point (a light cone) whereas in the lensing galaxy the light is simply projected around the central obstruction of the intervening - and lensing - galaxy. (I suspect howver that an observer in some point of a perfect gravitational lens would see a respiolved image.)

Greg
2005-Apr-30, 04:09 PM
Finding a well formed and quiescent galaxy 11bys old is a unique finding and quite puzzling too. To me it suggests that perhaps expansion slowed down more than was previously thought before the current inflationary phase and that the universe may be a bit older than we think. The alternative is getting more and more difficult to believe which is to push the formation of galaxies ever closer to the assumed dawn of the big bang.

The Near-Sighted Astronomer
2005-Apr-30, 08:27 PM
Therre is another way o0f interpreting high redshifts and mature galaxy formation - we may be looking past the radiant point for the Big Bang - that is that we are seeing galaxies moving away from us in an opposite direction. HOWEVER this galaxy is on the near rather than far side of the radiant. We need to see mature galaxies at Z=7+ before we might take this hypothesis seriously

Nereid
2005-Apr-30, 10:14 PM
An optical analogy of a gravitational lens, would be a tube with a mirroring inside and a black circle in the middle leaving a ring to see through. Looking through this contraption one would see the object indirectly and distorted in the mirroring walls.
The direct image of a gravitational lens will need extensive recalculation before it will tell us anything about what shapes we "see".This page (http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/extragal/gravlens/bibdat/engl/DE/didac.html) may be interest ... it discusses some ways in which the lensing caused by gravity resemble the lensing caused by glass (or plastic), and some in which they differ. Here (http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/Einstein_rings.html) is a page on Einstein rings (with links to microlensing ... 'caustics' are an interesting phenomenon, don't you think?)

biknewb
2005-May-01, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Nereid@Apr 30 2005, 11:14 PM

An optical analogy of a gravitational lens, would be a tube with a mirroring inside and a black circle in the middle leaving a ring to see through. Looking through this contraption one would see the object indirectly and distorted in the mirroring walls.
The direct image of a gravitational lens will need extensive recalculation before it will tell us anything about what shapes we "see".This page (http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/extragal/gravlens/bibdat/engl/DE/didac.html) may be interest ... it discusses some ways in which the lensing caused by gravity resemble the lensing caused by glass (or plastic), and some in which they differ. Here (http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/Einstein_rings.html) is a page on Einstein rings (with links to microlensing ... 'caustics' are an interesting phenomenon, don't you think?)
Thanks Nereid, for these links.

The term caustics was new to me in the optical sense. It is an intriguing phenomenon. Especially on the bottom of a swimming pool. :)
The microlensing effect is not completely clear to me. Shouldn't there be a dip in the middle of the curve when the dark object blocks the view?

Gravity lensing effects look very sensitive to lateral movement. They amplify the displacement of source, object and/or observer. Is this observed?

regards

The Near-Sighted Astronomer
2005-May-01, 08:10 PM
Caustics are an old optics term which means "burning" - that point where a light cone comes to focus.


Shouldn't there be a dip in the middle of the curve when the dark object blocks the view?

In fact this is the case - not all the light from the source "bypasses" the lens - this results in an "obstruction" however it would be interesting to have a massive body of "dark matter" create the field then there would be no obstruction since dark matter does not absorb or interact with light...

Guest
2005-May-01, 09:36 PM
Since dark matter is so ubiquitous in theory, then if you are right, why haven't we found any ring associated with dark matter?

The Near-Sighted Astronomer
2005-May-02, 06:25 PM
The dark matter has to coelesce into a small enough body to create a lens effect. But if you think about it dark matter is even at work in FOR J0332 since the majority of its mass is in that form by a ratio of about 10:1 however its the visible matter component that obstructs although this effect is reduced when an elliptical galaxy fully matures since the bulk of an elliptical galaxy's mass is condensed into stars which have very little obstruction effect overall..

Nereid
2005-May-02, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Guest@May 1 2005, 09:36 PM
Since dark matter is so ubiquitous in theory, then if you are right, why haven't we found any ring associated with dark matter?
Finding a ring is unusual - it requires just the right combination of lens/object/us characteristics. Finding lensed objects is not uncommon; here's another site (http://www.bell-labs.com/org/physicalsciences/projects/darkmatter/darkmatter.html) with some simple explanations ... it also shows how maps of the lensing mass can be created, from the (lensed) images ...

imported_Harald
2005-May-02, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Nereid@Apr 30 2005, 01:06 AM

I am quite convinced that Einstein's theories about space and time are complete nonsense. mad.gifAnd I am convinced that you are a complete nutter - surely the important thing is how well do {anyone's} convictions match good observational and experimental results? Or do you have an alternative proposal for making decisions?
The fact that the direction of light movement can be affected by gravity says nothing about the nature of space and time. Light can be broken by glass, so why not also by gravity? mad.gifOK, but does this statement have any bearing on the observation being reported here?
It is also rubbish that we today are using his principles. How could we, because they are wrong!
Hmm, OK, so can you give us all some references to peer-reviewed papers you (or others) have published where these 'mistakes' are outlined?
When his predictions - what almost always the case - were not verified, his followers invented new special laws to explain the differences.And I can claim that by dancing naked under the traffic lights near my local corner store, in the early hours of the morning when the Moon is near full, I have saved my community from a deadly invasion by pink heffalumps!

Would you be so kind to let us know in which respect Clifford Will (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html) errs in his exhaustive review of tests of GR? Please be as specific as you can.
For instance take the twin-paradox. We now know that both relative systems are completely equal. So there would be no possibility how one of them could be older than the other by the time of his return. So they simply held that it was the acceleration at the point of changing direction. Apart from the fact that Einstein never had talked about that before, this would be no possible explanation because the acceleration would be very short and therefore would have almost no effect, even when following the relativistic standpoint. mad.gifWould you be open to the suggestion that you have misunderstood 'the twin paradox'? If so, I'd be happy to provide you with references to material which describe this in sufficient detail so that you may understand where your misunderstanding lies.
Even from the maths point of view his equations have proven to be wrong.Details, please!
He didn't even know that you cannot divide through zero. And then his equations under special circumstances would allow a negativ time, which is also complete nonsense. There are still plenty of other things I did't mention. But it would take too long to mention them all here. mad.gifIndeed.

If Einstein had made, as you claim, such elementary errors in his use of basic math, a simple expose would be possible, would it not? One wouldn't need hundreds of pages of densely reasoned math, perhaps only a page or two would suffice, would it not? Could you be kind enough to give us a link to a peer-reviewed paper which lays bare these elementary errors in Einstein's math?
Hi Nereid, <_<

well, I wonder WHO is the nutter here. :huh:

I don&#39;t know what your profession is, but surely you never studied maths or natural science. As a matter of fact I DID, and I have several degrees - although I (German born) am a translator of Dutch and Swedish by profession. :D

I even know what a Nereid is. Surely at some time or other you just came across it, without still knowing what it is. And therefore you took and kept it. Ah yes, it &#39;s so simple. :blink:

Well, my impression is that you are a friend of the GTR and STR without even knowing what it (resp. both) say/s. The twin paradox is my favourite subject, and you bet I know what I am talking or writing about. :)

The rest of your letter says only: It would have long been detected if Einstein had been wrong. As a matter of fact it was detected from the beginning till today the day. When talking about galaxies as gravitational lenses being a proof for Einstein, I would say this WAS the subject here. Next time please read carefully before answering. :P

And then maths: Well, then just try dividing through zero or calculatin with a negative time if you like too. To me it is much too boring. Einstein was a fool or a cheat and not a genius. ;)

Well, if you are dancing naked and claim to have saved earth from man-eating aliens, then I wonder why I am answering you at all. Maybe I am a bit more polite than you are.

Offensive content removed by antoniseb. Harald this is your first warning

with kind regards

Harald

Nereid
2005-May-02, 11:43 PM
well, I wonder WHO is the nutter here.
Quite. The point is that a personal statement of conviction may be satisfying to the person making it, but if we&#39;re discussing science, then we both agree (I hope) that we need more.
I don&#39;t know what your profession is, but surely you never studied maths or natural science. As a matter of fact I DID, and I have several degrees - although I (German born) am a translator of Dutch and Swedish by profession.
And maybe I have 25 degrees, 16 of them PhDs, in math, physics, etc.

Again, what counts is not how many degrees you have, but the merits of the case you are presenting; since this is a science-based forum, that means a case based on demonstrating consistency between theory and good observational or experimental results.
Well, my impression is that you are a friend of the GTR and STR without even knowing what it (resp. both) say/s. The twin paradox is my favourite subject, and you bet I know what I am talking or writing about.
That&#39;s nice, but so far I haven&#39;t seen anything that convinces me, and I rather doubt that any other UT reader has either.
The rest of your letter says only: It would have long been detected if Einstein had been wrong. As a matter of fact it was detected from the beginning till today the day. When talking about galaxies as gravitational lenses being a proof for Einstein, I would say this WAS the subject here. Next time please read carefully before answering.
OK; I read your post again, but I&#39;m sorry to say that you haven&#39;t presented anything quantitative to support your assertions (or maybe I missed them?).

Please tell us in what way the &#39;Einstein ring&#39; that is the topic of this thread is inconsistent with GR.
And then maths: Well, then just try dividing through zero or calculatin with a negative time if you like too. To me it is much too boring.
I wonder, if it&#39;s &#39;much too boring&#39;, why are you wasting your time posting here?
Einstein was a fool or a cheat and not a genius.
He may well have been, but I venture to suggest that there is nothing in what you have posted that supports your assertion.

Harald, if I may be so bold as to summarise your position? "I, Harald, state that Einstein was wrong. You, UT readers, should accept my assertion because I, Harald, am an Authority."

The Near-Sighted Astronomer
2005-May-03, 12:33 AM
Hi All,

Tut, tut, what have we here? I personally like to hear contrarian positions on topics such as this but recommend that we all try to stay on topic&#33;

So here&#39;s my suggestion, Harald could you please describe an alternative explanation of what our esteemed confreres Remi et all have discovered? Are we simply seeing a single object? If so how can we explain the differences in spectrascopic content - say between Lyman alpha wavelengths in the source and the supposed "lens" galaxy? I genuinely would love to hear a good explanation for this.

As for Einstein&#39;s theories in general let me say this. Newtonian mechanics was superceded by Einsteinien relativism because Michelson-Morely disproved the existence of an absolute reference frame for light. Sooner or later Einsteinian relativism will be superceded by "Barbourian absolute-relativism" because light will soon be discovered to NOT be &#39;the fastest thing in the Universe" (All this will come out of an honest evealuation by thinkers of the EPR experiment which demonstrated the existence of "spooky forces" that transfer entangled properties between sub-atomic particles at instantaneous velocities - but AH I digress&#33;)

jeff

imported_Harald
2005-May-03, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by The Near-Sighted Astronomer@Apr 29 2005, 09:09 PM
On the twins thing (this is off-thread of course) time dilitation occurs because biological (and other behaviors) are driven by energy and energy is lost at relativistic speeds (because internally emitted waveforms are stretched out). As energy levels drop, so does the rate of change of the organism - thus time slows and at the speed of light one&#39;s metabolism becomes static...

As for validation I could make up any theory i want and if it covers all the known facts then predicts something unexpected that is later confirmed, then my theory is better than the one that preceded it EVEN if i made a few mistakes in detail along the way.

(And yes you can divide by zero as long as your result is infinity... Not encouraged by most mathematicians however&#33;)
As I can clearly see, you are a would-be expert. Defending division through zero - well, this is about ridiculous.

Moreover you seem to believe you are the reincarnation of Einstein. Well, if you believe in such things, you cannot expect me to take you seriously. Go to India, Bali or whereever you want. There you can teach them your kind of cosmology.

Errors can occur, but not as many as Einstein did. I don&#39;t think I have to come up with a new theory in order to prove another one wrong. Loss of energy? Ha ha ha&#33; Then go and fly into a black hole. There you can decide who is moving slower. Some people hold, the one who is going inside is aging slower. Then they (Einstein and his friends) go on, time would become slower and therefore he could fly into the past (which is about the contrary, but I don&#39;t think your zero-divisor sense of logic will suffice to understand this).

Some fool or other deleted my answer to Nereid. Well, you can do the same here. But that doesn&#39;t change the facts. In about fifty years or so - if you are still alive then, Removed offensive material - Harald, this is your second warning - you will surely deny of having ever believed in Einstein. He could as well have said that the earth is a disc.

antoniseb
2005-May-03, 03:09 PM
Harald, you seem to be trying to pick a fight by writing insulting things about the other people in this thread. You are allowed to express your negative opinions about Einstein, but you cannot call his supporters psych cases and drug abusers.

I am asking you to write respectfully about the other forum members. One more failure to behave in this way, and you risk being banned. I am sure that you feel that you are trying to enlighten us, and you being banned would be our loss, but even so, please try to follow the standards of this forum.

Please note that your comments about Jeff thinking he was a reincarnation of Einstein were also uncalled for, and not strongly based on anything he&#39;d written, and so potentially outside the bounds of good behavior here.

biknewb
2005-May-03, 05:33 PM
Harald

Also I have doubts about Einstein. You seem to base yours on mathematical grounds. Do you have an example I can understand without any degree in science?.
Another one then dividing by zero, please.

gerards regards

imported_Harald
2005-May-04, 03:31 PM
Hi biknewb&#33; :D

Yesterday I tried to answer you. But something went wrong. My posting just disappeared within a second. :huh:

No, my doubts about Einstein are not only maths-based. Only there his misconceptions can be proven very easily. However, who once believes in this stuff, will not abandon his ideas so quickly. Einsteins theories are more a religion than scientific. The problem is to explain this matter to laymen. B)

The best approach in my opinion is to show the shortcomings without having to come up with a new theory of my own. I must admit, about this I have no theory of my own. Some things in the universe will always remain unsolved, so this is no problem for me.

I can ask the following very simple questions:
What does the fact that light is affected by gravity (this assumption was there long before Einstein) have to do with space distortion?
Why does Einstein put space and time together?

Einstein to some extent was more a politician and a guru than a scientist. His ideas are a strange mixture of marxist materialism and the Hindoo/Buddhist Nirvana. <_<

Well, please be so kind as to tell me what your problems with Einstein are. Then I can be more precise, as I do not know your background. :rolleyes:

with kind regards :)

Harald :P

biknewb
2005-May-04, 03:52 PM
Harald

Consider my background that of the layman you mentioned. I find it easy to understand physics but I don&#39;t like mathematics.
After serously trying to understand GR and SR I still can&#39;t get a picture in my mind of what happens when we travel near lightspeed.
Math is a funny thing. The famous E=mc^2 looks too complicated for me. If c is a constant, you wouldn&#39;t have to use it squared. So E=m[some constant factor] says the same thing.
E=mc^2 would only have meaning when c is NOT a constant.

My real problem is with light being a particle and a wave at the same time. It can&#39;t be.

gerards regards

imported_Harald
2005-May-04, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by biknewb@May 4 2005, 03:52 PM
Harald

Consider my background that of the layman you mentioned. I find it easy to understand physics but I don&#39;t like mathematics.
After serously trying to understand GR and SR I still can&#39;t get a picture in my mind of what happens when we travel near lightspeed.
Math is a funny thing. The famous E=mc^2 looks too complicated for me. If c is a constant, you wouldn&#39;t have to use it squared. So E=m[some constant factor] says the same thing.
E=mc^2 would only have meaning when c is NOT a constant.

My real problem is with light being a particle and a wave at the same time. It can&#39;t be.

gerards regards
Hi biknewb&#33;

Well, I am a bit surprised.

1) Physics cannot do without mathematics.
2) Don&#39;t try to imagine things like travelling near lightspeed. This doesn&#39;t help you any further.
3) What you say about a constant factor not being squarable, I also have to disagree here. You&#39;re mixing up two different things here.
4) WHAT? Why in the world shouldn&#39;t light have properties of particles and a wave at the same time? Please explain me your problem.

with kind regards

Harald

antoniseb
2005-May-04, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Harald@May 4 2005, 05:45 PM
Well, I am a bit surprised.
Hi Harald,

Hopefully you can forgive those who have called you a nutter here. We do have a number of members who think Einstein was wrong, but, as you can see, few of them have actually studied the situation to the degree that you seem to have. If you do not back up your initial complaints with some serious examples and math, how can we tell the difference?

We had a somewhat heated debate on whether Einstein deserved any credit for relativity etc about six months ago, but that was about plagerism and is completely different from the discussion of the errors he may have made in his mathematics and concepts. This was started by a member who basically had that one thing to get off his chest, and when he was done defending his position, he never posted on any other topic here. Hopefully you will join the greater community on a broader range of topics.

In any case, there are people here who can engage you in a more serious discussion if you like. I&#39;d recommend starting a specific thread in the Alternative Theories section about the Twins Paradox, if that is your main starting point. Any further discussion of your concerns here in the Einstein Ring story comments will be difficult to find in the future, so I suggest moving the topic to the new thread sooner rather than later.

imported_Harald
2005-May-04, 08:29 PM
Hi Antoniseb&#33;

You&#39;re right. My main problem is that in the whole internet no one seems to be seriously interested in my questions.

My hope had been that maybe some people here were more up to date than I am. It is long ago since I left university and my profession today is a completely different one.

Most physicists of course are active in more simple fields, and they easily accept anything from Einstein, because they say it is commonly accepted. But I think this means moving in circles. No one is right only because his opinions are widely accepted. The question is why they are accepted, and this has not always to do with science.

I also heard that Einstein "stole" his ideas. Maybe he did, maybe he didn&#39;t, but as I am very sceptic about these ideas it is clear that this is not so interesting to me. In other fields also some of MY ideas have been stolen, and you know what: Im am proud of that, even if my name was never mentioned. However, it had nothing to do with physics or maths but with the Pelasgian ethnicity in early Greek history.

But yes, I will look for another thread. I really didn&#39;t mean to insult anyone here. Unfortunately I lose my temper quickly. Outwardly I am a red bearded Viking, but inside I am a hot blooded Mediterranean. At the moment being I have also private problems because my ten year old dog drives me crazy. He &#39;s always barking without a reason. Till some weeks ago he used to be very quiet. The vet doesn&#39;t know what can possibly have caused this change of behaviour.

The best to all of you.

with kind regards

Harald

Bruce W. Flaherty
2005-Jul-10, 03:05 AM
This reply is to the Einstein Ring news group. It is fascinating.



In thinking about the gravitational lensing effect from large galaxies imaging, so to speak, galaxies far behind them, cannot the same effect be used to image the primordal big bang volume?

How far to the volume of space where light travels to us from the socalled big luminations or such? Can a immense galaxy be found with the right focal properties and the right distance to "image" the big bang space "lumination" volume. Would one be looking at x-rays red shifted to visible light or even gamma rays red shifted?????

I am a degreed EECS in 1973 with an imagination for far-out astronomy. bruflah@hotmail.com

Bruce W. Flaherty
2005-Jul-11, 06:17 PM
In my linear geometrical optics thinking is that ring the image of the galaxy or just not in focus at our distance to the lens? There may be some focused images that appear to be infront of the lens but are actually behind. Two lens relay coming up at some time in the investigations.

How would electromagnetic-waves appear traveling to us from the Big Bang "volume for our time and distance" if imaged to us by some lensing element? Would it be constant or a short burst??????????????? Hmmm. The layman in me thinks Gamma Ray Bursters and X-ray bursters, but if true what type of red-shift would the original em waves be subject to? 10, 20 ??????

Next in this step. Is there a galaxy far enough away to image before the Big Bang???? HMMMMMMM. The Big Bang would be opaque to these. Try it anyway. Sorry. Two inline galaxies??????? May even the ones subject to scrutiny in this fine paper I have the privilege to read and reply to.


Somebody must have written something on the focal length, distance to image, and distance to object applied to gravitational lensing in the "universe". What focal length lens and distance to Big Bang lumination volume from lens and distance from Earth to lens to get good imaging. Spherical abberation? Coma.

Imagine a 10 Billion light year focal length gravitational lens??????????????


Bruce W. Flaherty MScEE 1973 bruflah@hotmail.com

Ah, you say typical layman thinking. I did do some optics courses. I also do http://swbdrec.freeservers.com which is basic and applied metaphsyics and allows me to think in these ways.

The Near-Sighted Astronomer
2005-Jul-11, 10:09 PM
Hi All,

My sense is that we will never actually see the &#39;Big Bang&#39; event due to the opacity of the Universe that existed for some 400,000 years afterwards. Meanwhile the actual radiation from that event took three subsequent forms:

1. Leakage radiation that precedes matter in expansion (the radiation that &#39;shot out&#39; of the post-transparency universe before re-ionization.) This particular radiation is long gone...

2. Re-radiated primordial radiation that has been scattered by free electrons since re-ionization. (A type of light that can not be focused into a coherent image since it has been randomized and now accounts for the CMBR).

3. Matter. (Which is now being converted back into radiation by stellar fusion and black hole absorption.)

And it is this third class of radiation that is coherent enough to be gravitationally lensed in the form of a caustic...

Cheers,

jeff

Bruce W. Flaherty
2005-Jul-18, 01:03 AM
I want to thank you so much for answering my questions.

There has been not much time for me to review the current state of the Big Bang developments. Years ago I recall that I thought the Big Bang happened at a point that became the center of the universe as the results expanded. I have seen theories that now say the Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time. If that is true then there should be a point at which one can see what is available for imaging---the caustics as the image appears of the diffuseness before the clumping and galaxies. In other words. The Einstein ring image is one of a galaxy that is so far away there is not enough light getting to earth to image it without extra help along the way. So I guess before the galaxies were formed the caustics would be the image of that diffuseness made visible by some convenient galaxy in between?????


I do think about this a lot but still don&#39;t have much of a grasp of the basics, yet.


To a certain extent I have to keep my nose to the grind stone in a metaphysical nature since that is how I protect my health. I love surfing this gravitational lensing subjects, but I do have to continue my occupation. This "From physics to metaphysics" page is just started. I have to add to text to it for people who don&#39;t have an audio card.

http://enlightenus2.com/Archive/RadioSenti...y/17/16ref.html (http://enlightenus2.com/Archive/RadioSentinel/2005/July/17/16ref.html)

Sincerely,
Bruce W. Flaherty

Gravitational lensing is exciting to think about since even a planet can do it. I&#39;ve been able to spend about 2 hours total in doing this on the internet. I have not found chromatic abberation in the reading but have found the concept of spherical distortion examined. I had my first course in geometrical optics from Professor Kingslake, at the Optics Institue at the University of Rochester.

Again thanks for writing the article and answering my questions.bwf

Nereid
2005-Jul-27, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Harald+May 4 2005, 05:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Harald @ May 4 2005, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-biknewb@May 4 2005, 03:52 PM
Harald

Consider my background that of the layman you mentioned. I find it easy to understand physics but I don&#39;t like mathematics.
After serously trying to understand GR and SR I still can&#39;t get a picture in my mind of what happens when we travel near lightspeed.
Math is a funny thing. The famous E=mc^2 looks too complicated for me. If c is a constant, you wouldn&#39;t have to use it squared. So E=m[some constant factor] says the same thing.
E=mc^2 would only have meaning when c is NOT a constant.

My real problem is with light being a particle and a wave at the same time. It can&#39;t be.

gerards regards
Hi biknewb&#33;

Well, I am a bit surprised.

1) Physics cannot do without mathematics.
2) Don&#39;t try to imagine things like travelling near lightspeed. This doesn&#39;t help you any further.
3) What you say about a constant factor not being squarable, I also have to disagree here. You&#39;re mixing up two different things here.
4) WHAT? Why in the world shouldn&#39;t light have properties of particles and a wave at the same time? Please explain me your problem.

with kind regards

Harald [/b][/quote]
Hi Harald,

If you&#39;re still reading posts to this thread, and are seriously interested in finding an internet forum where you can have really, really heavy duty discussions of Einstein&#39;s SR and GR (tensors and more), send me a PM, and I&#39;ll be happy to tell you about it&#33;

Kind Regards
Nereid