gravitational lensing

anyway back to the OP

is there an explanation to the blue hue around all objects in the photos ?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap961215.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950711.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You ever hear of using colors to help 'cordon off' deltas in astrophysical measurements? The blue hue isn't natural phenomena. You can't figure that on your own? Doesn't surprise me since you never have derived a scientific explanation for any of the nonsense you keep bringing up in the science threads. Stonewalling answers to your questions isn't a viable debate tactic. It's trolling. The 'blue hue'. LOL.

You didn't read the explanation below the brightness charts. Why you asking for one here? They use color to help 'cordon off areas of brightness' on the brightness charts you linked. It's not 'electric universe' natural phenomena.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's an example of gravitational lensing, due to the bending of space/time around a dense intervening object, and the fact that light follows geodesics in that same space/time.
Gravity no less, and why it is called gravitational lensing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this " cordon off " is not mentioned in the photos


Images taken by telescopes that observe at the "invisible" wavelengths are sometimes called "false color images" or "representative color images." That is because the colors used to make them are chosen to bring out important details. The color choice is usually a combination of what works best to show the data, as well as aesthetic choice. The color selection is used as a type of code in which the colors can be associated with the intensity or brightness of the radiation from different regions of the image, or with the energy of the emission.


CASSIOPEIA A (BW Neg)

CASSIOPEIA A (RED-ORANGE)

CASSIOPEIA A (Multi-color)


Chandra X-ray images of Cassiopeia A



For example, in the black and white Chandra X-ray image of the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A (Cas A) shown on the left, the darker shades represent the most intense X-ray emissions, the lighter shades of gray represent the areas of less intense emission, and the white areas represent the areas of little to no emission. In the yellow and orange version in the middle, a different "color code" was shown. There, the white and yellow colors represent the areas of highest X-ray intensity, the orange to red areas represent the areas of lower intensity, and the black represents little or no emission.

Variations in intensity in an X-ray image are usually associated with variations in the density, or concentration, of hot gas. In this image, the bright regions are associated with shock waves produced by an expanding shell of hot gas.

The version of Cas A on the right shows an image constructed by selecting different X-ray energy bands from the data, and using a color code to represent these. This representation can highlight temperature variations in the gas, with higher temperatures associated with higher energy X-rays, etc. The choices of energy bands and colors are arbitrary, but X-ray astronomers generally follow the convention that the low, medium, and higher X-ray energy bands of the Chandra data are shown as red, green, and blue respectively. In this particular image, red, green and blue represents X-ray energy bands of 0.3 to 1.55 kilovolts, 1.55 to 3.34 kilovolts, and 3.34 to 10 kilovolts, respectively.

 

His suspicious blue hue is just part of the false color imaging.

False color
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_color

LOL.

 

Typical of all conspiracy/anti mainstream pushers....Looking for something that isn't relevant or doesn't exist.
Have they ever heard of Occam's Razor?

 

I get it

the point still remains that the colour still represents a presence of something , and that something is plasmas

if the regions that I am discussing had nothing in them then the regions would be black

 

and brucep

refer back to my post #64

as to what colours mean

 

You get it. Really? LOL. Good for you.

 

It would be rather nice and fit in with accepted protocol if you gave the appropriate link.

 

Well so far you're propounding pseudoscience, as Orgin, brucep and paddoboy have established. As I pointed out, your source is trained in electrical engineering, so he's out of his field. Evidently he is suffering from some kind of delusion or else this is a game he's playing. A curriculum in EE does not typically require more than a passing knowledge of relativity, and GR would tend to be least relevant of all. Regardless of that, he is expressing paranoid phobias of the countless experts who are his academic superiors. That should tip you off that something is awry. As I mentioned, he seems to be limiting his remarks on GR to the phenomenon of the Einstein Cross in Pegasus:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

I'm going to humor your guy river, and ignore all of the specious tripe he's selling in his pseudocience shock-jock book. I'm going to ignore all of the other cases of lensing that are undeniable since you also dismissed the blatant example I posted. In the image above your guy is claiming that there are four objects not one. Note these remarks by NASA:

The quasar seen here is at a distance of approximately 8 billion light-years, whereas the galaxy at a distance of 400 million light years is 20 times closer. The light from the quasar is bent in its path by the gravitational field of the galaxy. This bending has produced the four bright outer images seen in the photograph. The bright central region of the galaxy is seen as the diffuse central object.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1990/20/image/a/
​

Your guy is claiming there are 4 quasars in front of the galaxy:

Spectral analysis of the region between the quasars indicates they are connected to the galaxy by streams of hydrogen gas (plasma). This plasma has the same extremely high redshift value as do the quasars.​

Of course he gives us no cite because the folks who did that study concluded that:

Observations of the Einstein Cross 2237+030 with the TIGER Integral Field Spectrograph (IFS) strongly confirm the gravitational lens hypothesis

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1989A&A...208L..15A/L000015.000.html​

And the evidence is all there in their paper for you to peruse. The onus is now on you to rebut this evidence with proof of his claim that they detected a plasma trail connecting 4 putative quasars to Huchra's Lens (the name of the galaxy), and to come with evidence from any astronomer of your choosing who is prepared to stipulate that the catalogued distances to the Huchra's lens place it behind the 4 putative quasars where lensing would be impossible.

Incidentally, you could have found this yourself by tracking the links provided in the wiki article which is one reason not to be too quick to dismiss paddoboy without first following the information he gave you. You never know what you're getting at wiki until you read it, so, like all good scientific inquiry, you're left to be confronted by the data. Now here it is in condensed form.

Incidentally, Huchra is pronounced Huck-ra, and is a reference to the late great John Huchra, and actual expert in this field whose credentials trump Don Scott in every category. And that's available on wiki too.

 

not true

this what Don said


Spectral analysis of the region between the quasars indicates they are connected to the galaxy by streams of hydrogen gas (plasma). This plasma has the same extremely high redshift value as do the quasars. So, what we actually have are four newly formed quasars symmetrically positioned around the active nucleus of a barred spiral galaxy. There is no mirage. No relativistic magic is needed to explain what we see happening in front of our eyes.

 

and the photos you gave are nothing near what these spectral photos show

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap961215.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950711.html

 

That's an interpretation that is not held by mainstream scientists, and obviously wrong....since GR and other observations show us that it is gravitational lensing.

And how about other examples of gravitational lensing.



http://www.eso.org/~prosati/GravLens/




and....


http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html

 

obviously not wrong

http://www.eso.org/~prosati/GravLens/

and....


http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html[/QUOTE]

just regular photos

 

stop dancing around the posts #72and 73 and explain

 

It's gravitational lensing, pure and simple, and no imagining more complicated issues because some "would be if he could be" told you so, and no jumping up and down, and screaming in a science forum, and no trolling, will make any difference to that accepted validated opinion...no blue hue plasma nonsense, no plasma/electric universe as the main driving force, no fairies at the bottom of the garden, just good old simple GR gravity.

 

Its not GL at all , look at the evidence

 

Oh, I was never much of a dancer...About the only thing I could do successfully was the "Maroubra Stomp"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FYe87UZAM

 

It's obvious you certainly are not looking at the evidence......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!