Some questions for better understanding of Main Stream Cosmology

deleted: forum malfunction and nothing to do with my IT skills!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read what Hawking says in his congrats comment to WMAP.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov

There's a good reason for saying that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great link bruce, and a nice FAQ SECTION AT....
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

deleted:
double post due to forum malfunctions of the weird kind.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree very nice link. Very clear and concise. I am sure our resident pseudo-scientist will hate it.

 

I appreciate the efforts by Paddoboy and origin for attempting to answer these two questions, but questions are still open and not at all answered.

I understand that spacetime curvature (4-D) is quite complex to conceptualize and very difficult to put on paper, but still these are the basic questions and call for clear answers. I request other experts to throw some light on these questions. May be Paddoboy would like to take the help of two of his Physicist friends.

For better understanding of Q2, let us say that Earth becomes the source of light and the source situated on the other side of the massive object becomes the observer, in that case the path of light can be just reversed to get some kind of lensed images of Earth. So how can we extrapolate in a straight-line, our extrapolation has to be the path of curvature only ?? Something wrong somewhere, either I am a moron or lensing theory is not properly explained. [I am not making the third obvious conclusion as yet].

 

Admin,

Some kind of bug is there in the forum posting script. It gives an error message, but nonetheless message gets posted.

 

Your questions, although rather unclear have been answered.
Light travels in geodesics. I'm not into the calculations and maths re how much lensing or bending appears to happen.
No imaginary problems, no "something wrong somewhere" except maybe your lack of proper terminology and understanding of cosmology/GR.
Now if you are serious, and still unclear re your imaginary problem, do what I have done in the past. E-Mail an Astronomer or Astrophysicist of some note.
Some will and do take the time to answer...others maybe too busy.
So send an E-Mail off to two or three...You may be lucky.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/eincros.html


http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html

 

Thats why I said may be you can clarify these questions also from them, if they can review a book for you, they can surely answer these questions !

Secondly if my questions are not clear to you yet, then how can you say that they have been answered ?

Please re read the questions which I have given in steps, you may take the help of a pen and pencil and draw the lensing geometry, it will instantly hit you that questions are bonafide. On the one side we say light follows the path of curvature, and in the same breathe we extrapolate on a non curvature to get those lensed images. This is self contradictory.

 

Yes, above link will help you understand the question.


Ref Q1: Please see the small arc made on the top and bottom of Massive Galaxy, the question was about the significance of exit point from these arcs (Curvature). Ideally this curvature should be closed around the Galaxy (Kind of envelop around the Galaxy) so how did the light exit in a straight line from that arc point??

Ref Q2: Pl refer to the extrapolation in Red Dashed Line to get the image of Quasar. How can we extrapolate like this when the path of light on that point was curved ?? Am I wrong when I say that such extended images can be drawn in optics when we extrapolate the path of light. In this case we are not extrapolating on the path of light, we are just making a straight line. Why ??

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You certainly post with plenty of audacity....[1] They are your questions, not mine: You do the research and necessary work to obtain answers, if they exist. But I suspect, they'll tell you the same as origin and I have.

[2] The two people concerned were a bonafide Astronomer and a GR theorist. They were members on another forum over a decade ago. I have lost touch with them.
Now you get up off your arse and do as I suggested, and stop passing the buck.

Your questions certainly made no sense, and in my opinion, as has been obvious in some of your past questions, you seem to want to insist on problem areas in astronomy, where there is none.
I answered the best way I know how with regards to the passage of light. Again, light travels in geodesics....simple as that.

 

Just as I said. You are imagining problems where none exists. The distance from the massive galaxy, where the light/photons pass, will determine the amount of lensing and curvature. Light passing further away from the massive galaxy, may not be lensed at all from the FoR of a planet in that line of sight.

We can extrapolate like that, because from the Earth's PoV, that is the "line of sight" of that light.
That is the lensing effect, and although a true image of the QUASAR, appears to be in another position.
In fact this was the first real evidence that was obtained to validate Einstein's relativity. An Astronomer called Eddington determined the position of a star during a total eclipse in 1919, whose light was passing close to the Sun, as deflected by exactly the amount that Einstein said it would be, and from where the star actually was.
Obviously this could not be done in normal daylight hours due to the Sun's glare.


At least my link did give some clarity to your questions, because before that, it was just a jumble of science sounding words.
I hope that finally answers your questions.
origin or another may wish to explain better then I have.

 

I hoped that a 3 days ban would have sobered you down but still you continue with your offensive baiting.....

 

You have not understood the questions. You are just pasting the information from here and there and leave aside the answers you refuse to even understand the question. You are just typing words for the sake of it. On the one side you claim that light shall travel on the geodesic, and on the other side when I ask, how can we extrapolate away from Geodesic, you change over to Eddington...

I once again put on record my appreciation for your blind acceptance of mainstream cosmology and GR/SR. I am sure you must be blindly supporting the time travel in either direction as well.

 

There is a great difference in these two postings. You are just bluffing around.

 

Bluffing around?
Not at all. In effect you once again are showing your lack of basic scientific knowledge once again.
Let me help you. The book I'm referring to that I asked to be peer reviewed was over 12 years ago...the book was "The Big Bang Never Happened"
The Astronomer concerned is the Professor of Astrophysics at Sydney University.
The particular science forum that these two participated in and which was run by the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Service] is now defunct.
So Like I said, I don't participate there any more.

Now once again, you refuse to accept any answers, probably for reasons already inferred.
So that's it for me.
You can either drown in your own delusions of certain non existent problems in cosmology, or you can if you are truly Interested, check out for yourself, by the means I have suggested or other means.
I doubt you are really Interested in finding out anyway, and you are slowly running out of excuses as to why you wont accept the answers given.

 

Nothing really offensive about it, unless one has a guilty conscious.
You asked me to E-Mail a couple of old experts from a forum over a decade ago on the answer to two questions you raised.
Why should I [even if they were accesssible] do your work for you. You do know how to google?
You do know how to send an E-Mail?...You have heard of reputable cosmologists like Kaku, Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark and others havn't you?
Yet you require me to E-Mail two old experts to answer your questions, and then accuse me of making it up when I explain why I cant?
Funny man.

 

That makes no sense. I assume it is a language barrier problem.

The 3rd obvious conclusion is that you do not understand gravitational lensing and you are not necessarily a moron.

There are plenty of sites on the internet to help you understand it. I recommend that you read them and try to understand. Just google graviatational lensing.

Here is an explanation and picture of gravitational lensing.

Your inability to understand a concept does not mean the concept is wrong.

 

Certainly I do. Light does indeed travel in geodesics.
And your confusion about gravity/warped/curved spacetime affecting the passage of light needed correcting...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun
The first observation of light deflection was performed by noting the change in position of stars as they passed near the Sun on the celestial sphere. The observations were performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse,[12] so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa.[13] The result was considered spectacular news and made the front page of most major newspapers. It made Einstein and his theory of general relativity world-famous. When asked by his assistant what his reaction would have been if general relativity had not been confirmed by Eddington and Dyson in 1919, Einstein famously made the quip: "Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway."


""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

It may seem that way from someone with an obvious agenda or two.
Sure I'm generally aligned with mainstream, because that is what is supported by the main bodies of evidence.
I have nothing against any alternative model, if that alternative model has some evidence either invalidating the incumbent model, or supporting the new stance.
In my short time here, I have not seen one alternative model with any thing supporting that concept, and that particularly applies to the three or four ToE's that some delusional characters claim to have.
Again, it's about time you came out of the closet. If you have any alternative hypothesis within your agenda, take it to the appropriate place.

With your comment about time travel, I believe given time, we may achieve all that is allowed by the laws of physics and GR...Guess what? They do not exclude time travel.
But hey!, why the red herring?.
You have two questions you claim are not as yet answered.
Get to work...I have given you the means of finding an answer!