Gravitational Lensing

[mabuhayguy]

OKAY

[TheGLaDNinja]

sam button is a faggot!

[rockorsario]

I cant believe i'm searching and loving these stuff when i could barely pass math in school.

[kenny8331]

is this explained by snells law? if not why not?

[randallbsmith]

@kenny8331 No Snells' law refers to the amount of bend caused at the interface between two materials with different indices of refraction. This gravitational lensing stuff is a different way to bend light. It's really the warp in spacetime that gives this effect.

[kenny8331]

@randallbsmith how do we know that its not gravities effect on the material around it and that material changing the direction of the light?

[randallbsmith]

@kenny8331 If there was stuff floating way out around the galaxies that cause the lensing I think that could be possible. But there is nothing there, it is a very empty vacuum. Again, it is the fabric of empty spacetime that is warped by graviity and nothing more. (At least, that seems to work as a very accurate explanation. Anything's possible, of course, like we might be in a dream, and so forth. )

[TheSonOfTheSystem]

I CAST THE FIRE!

[fertilizerspike]

There is no "how it works" to "gravitational lensing". Gravitational lensing is a crock, it defies known, proven physics. Further, it doesn't explain anything we observe in space unless you apply a bunch of ad hoc assumptions and conjure up unobservable stuff.

[CACBCCCU]

@fertilizerspike

Beats saying dark matter particles enter a phase-reversal state resembling light, and then they freely warp themselves while related dark matter particles control the media to amplify the effect.

[fertilizerspike]

@CACBCCCU

It doesn't really matter what anyone says about "dark matter" because it's utterly fictional. It was invented to explain why prevailing cosmological hypotheses fail to explain what we see in the universe.

[CACBCCCU]

@fertilizerspike

Dark matter is an effect of the massively warped and weirdly self-absorbed space generated by self-breeding spinning sources of a generally-too-closely-related General Relativity mass media. Gravitational lensing, on the other hand, is something often lamely scoffed-at in some vain back-handed triumphalist walk-in-backward scheme typically designed to have people clinging to general relativity even more tightly in defense, or to associate unrelated equally-queered concepts.

[CACBCCCU]

@fertilizerspike

Much of my current take on the nature of gravity is briefly explained in comments I've made under the video entitled "Gravity Doesn't Exist" however I didn't write there with any difference between fuzzballs and black holes in mind.

[CACBCCCU]

If you think of GR's gravitational potential high-points, i.e. cosmological-scale-emptiness (flat space) regions, as being sea level, it's clear that without a cosmological antigravitational effect (e.g. the cosmological constant, now apparently revived as dark energy) the world of GR is an underwater world on its way to collapse, in need of an antigravitational pickup. Maybe if Einstein had seen Hoag's object he would've instead added land to GR's underwater universe to save it from collapse.

[CACBCCCU]

By pico-Hz scale gravitons, I actually mean the graviton has a pico-Hz rotation rate as seen from the perspective of a particle traveling at lightspeed alongside the graviton. The effect of a massive flow is not a low-frequency wave in time as seen from a realtively-fixed point, but a static-wave multiplier of gravitostatc potential forming a concentric set of fixed-distance "ripples" a bit like circular islands rising above the top of a gravity-well filled with water to its flat-space brim.

[CACBCCCU]

Corrections to what I wrote a while back below, "rotates proportionally to the energy" should be "rotate at a rate prortional to the energy." The photon force vectors I mentioned are supposed to be carried by the virtual photons of a static magnetic field, which photons I suppose have, much like gravitons, a very low E=hv energy per quanta, i.e. practically zero-frequency. Giving a rotation rate to gravitons around pico-hertz-scale seems to explain how galaxies like Hoag's can form a ring.

[rgrggfdgfgr]

Look at the Einstiens Cross, for a perfect REAL image of this.

[AAandries]

@guigs219 that's rude man.. funny though

[alucard1083]

we'll never know the beyond...what we can witness isw all distorted. this sucks

[M1ST3RHYDE]

I love This, Bravo.

[gorilamunch]

it is pro but DEAR GOD HER VOICE IS ANNOYINGINGLY BORING

[alvinhdavenport]

it makes you wish you could be sucked into a black hole.

[CACBCCCU]

To clarify, the idea is to assume that the force vectors of all bosons, not just photons, rotates proportionally to the energy of the boson, even when the boson is a graviton. The plane of rotation for the graviton would have to include the path of the graviton as the force vector always begins pointing toward its source. After averaging over every possible orientation of that plane along the path one arrives at a cosine function to represent the graviton wavefunction.

[MegaMichkel]

geek?

[CACBCCCU]

I've been suggesting a low-energy quantum correction to Newtonian gravity which involves multiplication of the force by a wavefunction with an extremely long wavelength to match the low energy of the graviton. Einstein lensing is normally modeled using Newtonian gravity fields. I don't believe one can get a Hoag's galaxy or other ring galaxy without the quantum correction. The cosine factor also gives better-looking, rounder and tighter spiral arms existing in pairs.

[CACBCCCU]

Thanks for the great video.

Lensing probably explains the recently found so-called "ring of dark matter" best, as it seems to me to be a compound lensing phenomenon similar to what's seen at 1:39 here but with an additionally-compounded concentric imaging. The computer-rendered bluish shape of the so-called dark matter ring also matches the shape of the red Einstein ring shown at 1:21 here.

[durks2514]

very interesting

[Dutchdrummer99]

Very informative.

[patatepowa]

OMG THIS IS PRO

[zer0dahero]

@patatepowa No, this is very basic and fundamental enough for someone with a spoonfull of brains to kind of understand.