Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: "Gravitational Lens" may have negligable impact on accepted theory of rapidly expanding universe theory

  1. #1 "Gravitational Lens" may have negligable impact on accepted theory of rapidly expanding universe theory 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    Taking the raw doppler data as finished data for measuring the speed distant galaxies are speeding away from all other galaxies may have been a mistake for science to build on all these years.

    Hypothesis:

    In order for large objects, such as the Sun, to bend light from distant galaxies around them, that bent light must be elongated (dopler red-shifted) all light as it approaches the Sun through to leaving the solar system its reverse side.

    The Milky Way galaxy can be thought of as a very large object collectively. It too is elongating light as it passes through it from from far away galaxies.

    The combinative effect of the Sun's and Milky Way's red-shifting of light from our perspective gives the appearance of all galaxies moving away from us at a faster rate than is true. I call this effect a "gravitational lens".

    Our perception is skewed by this stretching of light. And there is no easy way to measure how much. If, however, a space craft were to leave the Solar System and send back red-shift data from outside its gravitational lens, the difference in doppler red-shift data taken from within the Solar System can measure the Sun's gravitational lens effect.

    If this hypothesis is even partially right, the theory of a rapidly expanding universe is somewhat mitigated. That is, the universe may not be expanding quite as rapidly as is presently believed.





    ~ Chris Kollerer
    Last edited by ckollerer; 08-26-2017 at 09:19 AM. Reason: Great demotion of impact on CMB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by ckollerer View Post
    If my theory is even partially right, the theory of a rapidly expanding universe is seriously mitigated, if not debunked. What will that mean in terms of tangential theories of black matter and energy?
    It is wrong in pretty much every detail. So there is no need to worry about the established science. But thanks for your concern.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    Just as light bends around a large object, such as the Sun, our collective gravity "bends" our perception of light external to our gravity field as receding from our community gravity.

    This not to say that external light seems to speed more quickly towards us equally and at the same time. To the contrary: Light is enlongated (frequency lowered) as it filters through our "gravitational lens". This makes it appear doppler-wise as receding from us.

    I understand this is a difficult concept to get one's head around. So give yourself the requisite time to consider its merit.
    Last edited by ckollerer; 08-21-2017 at 06:44 PM. Reason: clarification
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    Strange ~

    Your quick and blithe dismissal of the theory, without refuting comments, does not contribute to this thread.

    Please note: This is the only place on the internet I have posted this hypothesis. I realize I have not made a prediction, as is required for the scientific method for a theory to be fully expressed and conssidered a theory.

    Since I am a layman, I don't have the faculties to predict anything, mostly because I don't think measurements of the effects of the "gravitational lens" can be made.

    But perhaps a study of far away galaxies' relative mass and circumference will lend science to give a ballpark figure on each galaxy's gravitational effect on its dopplered light signature. That probably is not good enough to be called a prediction either. But it is all I got as a layman.

    If some of this scientific community can offer a full refutation of this hypothesis, I will be quick to accept it. I am relying on the quality members of this forum only to set me straight if I am wrong.

    On the other hand, if my hypothesis has any merit at all, I counting on you to say so, and perhaps offer suggestions on how to improve it, or better yet, move it forward.
    Last edited by ckollerer; 08-21-2017 at 09:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    226
    Sigh. OK, here is an attempt to point out some of the more egregious errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by ckollerer View Post
    Taking the raw doppler data as finished data for measuring the speed distant galaxies are speeding away from all other galaxies may have been a mistake for science to build on all these years.
    The red-shift of distant galaxies is not due to the Doppler effect. It is cosmological red-shift caused by the different scale factor.

    Black holes at the center of galaxies are known to prevent light from escaping their core influence.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "core influence" but, while it is true that light cannot escape from within a black hole, it has no problem escaping from the area around it.

    Just outside that area, the speed of emitted light seems greatly reduced.
    The speed of light is invariant. In other words it isn't reduced.

    Further out from a black hole, the speed of light seemingly increases exponentially away from it.
    The speed of light does not increase. And if it did, it would not be exponential (it would presumably follow an inverse square law).

    Still, no matter where your perspective is within a galaxy, emitted light speed is seemingly drawn down by black holes...
    Nope.

    but not only within the gravitational sphere of influence of individual black holes.
    How do you define "the gravitational sphere of influence"? The gravity of a black hole extends to infinity.

    There is a collective gravitional influence.
    What does that mean?

    The gravitational influence of the entire galaxy draws light towards its center, slowing its escape speed.
    Nope. The speed of light doesn't change.

    Does this "gravitational lens" factor into measuring the red-shift of light external to our community of galaxies?
    Perhaps you are thinking of the gravitational red-shift of light from distant galaxies and how that compares to cosmological red-shift?

    If so, some simple calculations will show that it is insignificant. I will leave you to do those. Secondly, the light may be red-shifted as it leaves a galaxy but will then be blue-shifted as t approaches our galaxy. Typically, this will roughly balance out. Finally, the gravitational red-shift of a galaxy should be independent of distance, whereas cosmological red-shift is proportional distance.

    If so, the light from far away galaxies is not affected by our community of galaxies, no. But our perception is skewed by gravitational pull. And there is no easy way to measure how much.
    Why can't it be measured? And if it can't be, then it isn't really science, it is just guesswork.

    More affirmatively, far away galaxies' speed of light emitted is similarly slowed away from their centers.
    Again, no.

    This results in an appearance of galaxies moving away from us in a doppler red-shift.
    Why would this increase with distance?

    If my theory is even partially right, the theory of a rapidly expanding universe is seriously mitigated, if not debunked.
    You would need to show that your mathematical model produces a better match to the observed data than the current model does. DO you think you can do that?

    What will that mean in terms of tangential theories of black matter and energy?
    Dark matter has nothing to do with the red-shift or the expansion of space.

    Dark energy is suggested to explain the accelerating expansion. How does your idea explain that acceleration?
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    So you are saying my understanding that the red-shift of light is not at the root of the accepted theory that nearly all galaxies are moving away from each other? If so, then I will stop right there. As that is the crux of my hypothesis.

    Thank you for your time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by ckollerer View Post
    So you are saying my understanding that the red-shift of light is not at the root of the accepted theory that nearly all galaxies are moving away from each other?
    No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you seem to massively overestimate the effect of gravitational red-shift of galaxies and you don't explain why it would increase with distance. Please show your calculations.

    Also, the increasing red-shift with distance is only one piece of evidence. It was the first evidence found to support (what was later called) the Big Bang model. Note that the theory came first and then evidence was found that supported it. Note also, that it is a detailed mathematical model that can make testable predictions. Can you do that with your idea?

    But when the red-shift was the only evidence supporting the expanding universe, people were able to come up with alternative explanations. (None of these involved gravitational red-shift, for obvious reasons). But then further evidence was found. In particular the CMB. This killed all the other theories.

    So, your idea would need to provide an explanation for the spectrum and temperature of the CMB, as well as explaining red-shift. (It oesn't explain red-shift either, but never mind.)

    If so, then I will stop right there. As that is the crux of my hypothesis.
    I thought the crux of you idea was that red-shift was caused by gravity.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    Okay, then. We shall continue this discussion, one item at a time. This may take awhile. Let's start with CMB, which you brought up last:

    My understanding of cosmic microwave background is that it is ever-present, no matter which direction you look. I don't see how its spectrum has anything to do with doppler red-shift of far way galaxies. I don't see a need to get into its temperature either. I hope you are not inferring that I am trying to topple the Big Bang theory as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    I did not say that doppler red-shift was caused by gravity.

    I am saying that our "gravitational lens" and the gravity of individual galaxies have an effect on the red-shift as we perceive it. And the raw data of doppler red-shifted light from far away galaxies should not be accepted as finished data upon which to base tangential theories. I repeat that I, as a layman, cannot provide any formulae. I am merely trying to show that it is possible that galaxies are not speeding away from each other as fast as that raw data would indicate. I would welcome any collaboration by those who can provide supportive formulae.

    But first, let's get this hypothesis viably presented.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    By a black hole's core influence, I was referring to its event horizon. Sorry to quote Wickapedia as a source, but I am in a hurry:

    "Light emitted from inside the event horizon can never reach the outside observer. Likewise, any object approaching the horizon from the observer's side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon,[1] with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses."

    I am addressing this redshift. I did not make it clear in all cases that I was not referring to the speed of light itself as changing speeds. I will correct that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by ckollerer View Post
    Okay, then. We shall continue this discussion, one item at a time. This may take awhile. Let's start with CMB, which you brought up last:

    My understanding of cosmic microwave background is that it is ever-present, no matter which direction you look. I don't see how its spectrum has anything to do with doppler red-shift of far way galaxies. I don't see a need to get into its temperature either.
    Well, if you this ignorant of the relevant physics, it is hard to take you seriously.

    I hope you are not inferring that I am trying to topple the Big Bang theory as well.
    Well, if you are replacing cosmological red-shift with gravitational red-shift, it certainly sounds like it.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by ckollerer View Post
    I am saying that our "gravitational lens" and the gravity of individual galaxies have an effect on the red-shift as we perceive it.
    Calculating that red-shift should be pretty easy. (Lensing does not have a significant effect on red-shift so we can ignore that.)

    But it will be roughly constant for all galaxies (assuming they all have the same average mass), regardless of their distance. Therefore if there were an error introduced by this then it would be proportionally smaller as galaxies get further away.

    However, any such effect is likely to be cancelled out by the blue-shift as the light approaches our galaxy.

    I am merely trying to show that it is possible that galaxies are not speeding away from each other as fast as that raw data would indicate.
    With no data to support this, it is fairly pointless speculation.

    Also, do you not think that experts in physics might not have thought about the amount of gravitational red-shift of light emerging from a galaxy?
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by ckollerer View Post
    By a black hole's core influence, I was referring to its event horizon. Sorry to quote Wickapedia as a source, but I am in a hurry:

    "Light emitted from inside the event horizon can never reach the outside observer. Likewise, any object approaching the horizon from the observer's side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon,[1] with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses."

    I am addressing this redshift. I did not make it clear in all cases that I was not referring to the speed of light itself as changing speeds. I will correct that.
    I'm not sure why black holes are relevant. They make up a minute proportion of the mass of a galaxy. And, with the exception of active galactic nuclei (quasars, etc) they produce an even smaller proportion of the light.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by ckollerer View Post
    By a black hole's core influence, I was referring to its event horizon. Sorry to quote Wickapedia as a source, but I am in a hurry
    Why don't you just not post when you're in a hurry? This isn't a speed test. Rather than posting frankly ignorant things, take the time to learn the relevant physics, assemble your thoughts into something coherent, THEN post.

    Strange has already pointed out several important defects in what you've presented so far. To that I would add the observation that space is mostly empty, so any "theory" that proposes to explain redshift as the consequence of lensing would have to explain the observed properties of the CMB, such as

    1) The amazing isotropy of the CMB.
    2) The particular nature of the anisotropy of the CMB.
    3) The remarkable match between the CMB spectrum and that of an ideal black body.
    4) The observed relationship between distance and redshift.

    etc.

    You need to have a deeper understanding of these observations, as well as of their implications. The present theory we have is the result of accommodating all of the evidence amassed to date. It is not sufficient merely to look at one tiny corner of the puzzle, shoehorn a piece and declare the puzzle solved.

    Your lensing proposal is a complete non-starter. Study first, propose new theories later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    Even though I have edited the hypothesis to downplay the effect of a gravitational lens, I am at the moment stopped from furthing its development in light of the refutations presented.

    I was aware of CMB when I started the hypothesis. I just didn't see that it necessarily had a perfect fit for raw red-shift measurements.

    Thank you for your alalyses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    I have now seriously down-graded the impact of the hypothesis of a gravitational lens on the CMB to negligible. Unless this has already been proposed, the hypothesis may now have the beginnings of merit, albeit small.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by ckollerer View Post
    In order for large objects, such as the Sun, to bend light from distant galaxies around them, that bent light must be elongated (dopler red-shifted) all light as it approaches the Sun through to leaving the solar system its reverse side.
    And it is blue-shifted as it leaves. So there is no overall effect.

    The combinative effect of the Sun's and Milky Way's red-shifting of light from our perspective gives the appearance of all galaxies moving away from us at a faster rate than is true. I call this effect a "gravitational lens".
    That is not what gravitational lensing means. This effect (if it exists) is called "gravitational red-shift". But light arriving at our galaxy is BLUE shifted.

    Also, this effect (which is very small) is constant for all galaxies independent of their distance. Therefore it would have more effect for nearby galaxies and almost no effect on distant galaxies.

    Our perception is skewed by this stretching of light. And there is no easy way to measure how much.
    Nonsense. Here is juts one recent study that depends on knowing exactly how much gravitational lensing takes place: https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/sup...all-over-again

    (I guess you are assuming that because you don't know anything about this subject then no one else does either. Which is very silly.)

    If, however, a space craft were to leave the Solar System and send back red-shift data from outside its gravitational lens, the difference in doppler red-shift data taken from within the Solar System can measure the Sun's gravitational lens effect.
    Voyager.

    If this hypothesis is even partially right, the theory of a rapidly expanding universe is somewhat mitigated.
    It isn't so it isn't. As noted, you are wrong in almost every detail.

    Wouldn't you be better off spending your time actually studying the subject rather than making up stories that you like the sound of?

    I know learning is hard work. It is much easier to make stuff up that "makes sense". But you are just wasting your time. And it is a bit of an insult to those who have spent years doing the hard work to understand these problems.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And it is blue-shifted as it leaves. So there is no overall effect.
    We aren't talking about light leaving our galaxy (or Solar system), only entering it, as that is our only vantage omnidirectionally.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    That is not what gravitational lensing means. This effect (if it exists) is called "gravitational red-shift". But light arriving at our galaxy is BLUE shifted.
    Reference? I don't see how light can be compressed by gravity as it enters a gravity field, only elongated, which I have explained.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Also, this effect (which is very small) is constant for all galaxies independent of their distance. Therefore it would have more effect for nearby galaxies and almost no effect on distant galaxies.
    Red-shift would be close to a constant of all external light from our vantage as far as the Sun's and Milky Way's gravitational influence is concerned. Neighboring galaxies would have interacting gravitation effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Nonsense. Here is juts one recent study that depends on knowing exactly how much gravitational lensing takes place: https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/sup...all-over-again
    This article refers to light seen external to a very strong gravitational field. So it has no bearing on what I have had the misfortune of calling a similar name for its effect. I will adopt your "gravitational red-shift" for the effect within a large gravitational field.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    (I guess you are assuming that because you don't know anything about this subject then no one else does either. Which is very silly.)
    No comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Voyager.
    What are you saying? Has Voyager I or II made any redshift studies?


    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It isn't so it isn't. As noted, you are wrong in almost every detail.

    Wouldn't you be better off spending your time actually studying the subject rather than making up stories that you like the sound of?

    I know learning is hard work. It is much easier to make stuff up that "makes sense". But you are just wasting your time. And it is a bit of an insult to those who have spent years doing the hard work to understand these problems.
    I appreciate your years of hard work. I don't believe I am insulting you by bringing my hypothesis up to you for scrutiny. To the contrary.

    I don't think we have finished this discussion. I have majorly modified my original hypothesis based on your much appreciated feedback. And I am willing to toss the minor remainder of the hypothesis if you provide adequate refutation.

    I believe laypeople can ocassionaly offer a valid input. Granted, if I had your years of study, my thoughts would not be so poorly presented. I again sincerely thank you for your very valuable responses.
    Last edited by ckollerer; 08-27-2017 at 09:34 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by ckollerer View Post
    Reference? I don't see how light can be compressed by gravity as it enters a gravity field, only elongated, which I have explained.
    I find it baffling when people with zero knowledge of basic physics think they can come up with a new explanation. Oh well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluesh...onal_blueshift

    Neighboring galaxies would have interacting gravitation effects.
    As you hcannot calculate any such effects and are just making wild guesses, I think we can just leave that.

    What are you saying? Has Voyager I or II made any redshift studies?
    They constantly measure the Doppler shift from the Voyager probes. (Apart from anything else, they need to do this to maintain radio contact.)

    https://geekswipe.net/technology/aer...r-spacecrafts/

    I believe laypeople can ocassionaly offer a valid input.
    Care to provide an example?

    I don't think we have finished this discussion. I have majorly modified my original hypothesis based on your much appreciated feedback. And I am willing to toss the minor remainder of the hypothesis if you provide adequate refutation.

    I believe laypeople can ocassionaly offer a valid input. Granted, if I had your years of study, my thoughts would not be so poorly presented. I again sincerely thank you for your very valuable responses.
    And thank you for not being like 99.9% of people who come here with there own theories who are convinced they are right and 100s of years of the world's greatest minds have made some trivial mistake!

    But I do think you should undertake some formal study of physics before attempting this sort of thing. There are plenty of online courses from various universities.

    But if you want to challenge cosmology, then you are going to need decades of study to post-doctoral level.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    11
    I am humbled now that you have given me refutations of the very basis of my hypothesis. You have thoroughly debunked it. Please move this embarrassment to the trash.

    You have been abloslutely right about my ignorance, etc. Please accept my appologies for my arrogance and my sincere thanks for your patience in setting me straight on all this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    226
    I think you deserve credit for your interest and imagination. Don't be disheartened. There are some amazing things to learn about.
    ckollerer likes this.
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •