Gravitational Lens & the Einstein Ring

In this 3D Animation a gravitational lens passes in front of spiral galaxy and one can see the "Einstein Ring", marked with a black circumference.

Credit: ESA/Hubble (M. Kornmesser & L. L. Christensen)

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Gravitational
• Lens
• Einstein
• Ring

[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".

[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!

[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* 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* 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* 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: 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]

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

[guyboy625]

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

[orekaparticle]

@guyboy625

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

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