Gravitational Lens & the Einstein Ring

[MirageScience]

Einstein was full of shit, and that's exactly why I'm going into physics. I don't want people to keep hearing these goofy ass lies. Ask a physicist if any singularity has ever been observed or if any event horizon has been observed and he will tell you, NO. Ask how well Einsteins equations hold up to a skeptic, and he will surly tell you there are apparent contradictions. And seeing how the big bang's scientific foundation is based on these equations, its validity is also subject to question.

[bookey80]

@MirageScience: Observe Event Horizon to what detail? There are few observation of Event Horizon, and also there is one claiming there is a surface to black hole, and no Event Horizon. Technology is just emerging. We will most likely see great observations in following decade.

General theory of relativity is proven right in weak limit. Strong gravity observation with enough details are still needed. The theory will break at small scale. But saying that Einstein was full of shit is plain wrong.

[eibenag]

@MirageScience: If by "going into physics" you mean perusing it as an academic degree, I am very happy to hear this! You seem to have much to gain. First of all, Einstein himself did not predict the existence of event horizons and singularities--you should instead direct your complaints about the former to Mitchell, Laplace, Schwarzschild, Droste, et. al. Nonetheless, there is indirect evidence that event horizons do exist--search the Internet for "event horizon observations."

[eibenag]

@MirageScience: *Continued from below* Next, given the success of quantum mechanics and the limits which it imposes on precision at the smallest scale, few physicists nowadays would claim that singularities exist. The fact of the matter is that we do not know what exists at the centers of black holes or the first instant of time. Developing a model that can successfully describe these things is currently an active area of research; see "theory of everything."

[eibenag]

@MirageScience: *Continued from below* Please clarify what you mean by "apparent contradictions". By "Einsteins equations," are you referring to the field equations of general relativity, or every equation that he has ever written down? By "apparent contradictions," do you mean self-contradictions, or contradictions with other physical theories? I am not familiar with any of the former, i.e. relativity is perfectly self-consistent, and no one denies the latter . . (see next post).

[eibenag]

@MirageScience: *Continued from below* It is very well known that relativity and quantum mechanics are incomparable and contradict one another, but they are both fully supported by observation and experiment within their own domains. Fortunately, we have seen this before, and know that it simply means that neither theory is the end of the story--they are both simply approximations of something even deeper. Finding that something is an active area of research.

[eibenag]

@MirageScience: *Continued from below* Finally, the scientific foundation of the big bang IS NOT Einstein's equations. You seem to confuse "scientific foundation is based on" with "does not contradict." Indeed the scientific foundations of the big bang are -observations-, as is the case with -any- scientific theory.

[eibenag]

@MirageScience: *Continued from below* In particular, those observations which support the big bang are the expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background, the relative abundances of chemical elements, observations of galaxy formation and evolution, and much more. I recommend to you Steven Weinberg's book The First Three Minutes.

Good luck in your pursuits!

[fertilizerspike]

Gravitational lensing is a crock, the only place it's ever observed is in cartoons.

[eibenag]

@fertilizerspike: A simple search on the Internet for "gravitational lens observations" demonstrates that your statement is incorrect.

[fertilizerspike]

@eibenag

A knowledge of fundamental phsyics is enough to demonstrate that "gravity" has utterly no effect on electromagnetic radiation. Light CAN be lensed, but by electromagnetic forces, not "gravity".

[jorgepeterbarton]

light is bent, or is it still travelling in a straight line through warped space!

[guyboy625]

@jorgepeterbarton Can space even be warped at all!

[jorgepeterbarton]

@guyboy625 erm.. yes.. see Einstein...light isn't bending like through a camera lens.... actual space is bending and light, through 3 dimensional space is still in a straight line...its true you know... time gets bent here two- its the basis of contemporary cosmology!!!

[guyboy625]

@jorgepeterbarton Just because it's the basis of contemporary cosmology doesn't make it "true".

[jorgepeterbarton]

@guyboy625 yer... you can prove anything with fact.. can't you.. idiot.

[guyboy625]

@jorgepeterbarton Sorry, I don't understand your comment. But no, you can't prove anything and facts don't exist in nature.

[jorgepeterbarton]

@guyboy625 well sorry... solipsists don't really get a word in science... we have an accepted observed world and for most who are not metaphisically in a bind this is fine....

would the hubble sattelite navigate without this knowledge of space-time because gravity is weaker than on earth-no- it has to be compensated for... does the hubble exist is what you are implying? i'm all for philosophy but its irrelevant to this. comments like 'but nothing exists' are basically irritating remarks.

[jorgepeterbarton]

@jorgepeterbarton ...like the game you might have played as a kid... saying 'why?' after every sentence your parents say to see how far you can annoy them...

[guyboy625]

@jorgepeterbarton No, I'm not insinuating solipsism. What I meant was: In science there are no facts, only theories. This is because it is impossible know anything with absolute certainty, as error is always present. It's just the scientific method. You work with theories/models. There is no giant book with the absolute laws of the universe and there never will be.

[jorgepeterbarton]

@guyboy625 yes that's fine... but it just must be applied within reason... it can apply to theories but not so much observed effects... we see that space is bent around large objects..and it fits our equations of gravity... ok we don't really have a fundamental understanding of gravity... as much as it is scientifically true its true and its still bringing up irrelevant stuff... you wouldn't post this on 'how magnets work' or something like that would you? maybe just being pedantic?

[guyboy625]

@jorgepeterbarton I would have similar doubts about magnets as well, just nearly as strong ones. We clearly are more advanced in magnetism than in gravity. I'm just concerned about the attitude that certain people have about science being the progressive uncovering of sentences in the giant book I mentioned. It's pretty weird, but I know quite a few people with such attitudes.

[jorgepeterbarton]

@guyboy625 no one has said anything about absolute laws. we have pictures, direct evidence, fits einstein's theory. doesn't explain everything nor try to. but it explains why we see some effects which are relatively small amount of information we observe across the cosmos. another theory WILL come and replace them but more often for something we've not observed. if you don't like science, really why waste time here? i'm aware of uncertainty you see, but its just irrelevant to bring it up.

[jorgepeterbarton]

Its just irrelevant to this video to bring that up because most people who are into science already know those complications. they know it when they write the word 'true' knowing that it doesn't quite mean it... you could say that about any part of science

you made it seem that you were criticising einstein becuase its not intuitive. "that's strange- can't imagine that!" but your not, just bringing up already accepted points. saying gravitational lensing exists is nowhere near some universal law

[guyboy625]

@jorgepeterbarton Yes, you are right, I brought up an irrelevant point. I guess calling things "true" is ok, but saying "you can prove anything with fact" just isn't right to me.

[jorgepeterbarton]

@guyboy625 'you can prove anything with fact' was just a sarcastic comment... i thought you were one of those people who just rely on intuition, and denied observation --perhaps there are just too many around? not used to people at least on youtube who have some intellectual sense...must have had wires crossed at some point..

[guyboy625]

@jorgepeterbarton Oh lol you thought I was the kind who denies observation, I thought you were the kind who thinks the current state of science is the truth. I guess that teaches us to start by assuming the best of people, especially on the web, no matter how many idiots are around.

[orekaparticle]

@guyboy625

Re: "I would have similar doubts about magnets as well"

Have you ever heard the Insane Clown Posse's song Miracles?

[guyboy625]

@orekaparticle yup, of course, I'm a major meme enthusiast.

[bicnarok]

Wow they must have used a lot of glass to make a lense that big.

[Maxo12110]

Oh wait, you didn't make it. But nice anyways. :P

-Max

[Maxo12110]

Very nice! I made something similar (you can see it in my videos) but it's not as good as this one.

-Max

[ssyreeni]

Totally awesome to finally find a faithful animation, but  a slower pace and an explanatory soundtrack would definitely help.

[charlieking100]

the light from the galaxy is bent and then directed to the observer because of the massive blackhole obstructing the path of the light rays from the galaxy. the space which is warped due to its mass , bends the light rays from the source behind the object and then, it is perceiced that there might be multiple sources or a source which does not exist far away from the original light source.

[camilocuesta]

I don't understand, it the black hole between the observer and the galaxy? Is the galaxy suctioned by the black hole as it passes through it, or just the light?

[charlieking100]

see... imagine a solar eclipse... is the moon absorbed by the sun....? no right? it just passes b/w earth n sun.... similarly , a blackhole just drifts inbetween the galaxy n the observer.... when doing so, it creates ripples in spacetime which wobble the light passing thru the edges of the blackhole(event horizon) which is the startn part of the spacetime warping and twisting..therefore, we see wobbled light around which we normally would not... hence we deduce , there is a blackhole there