Gene243 wrote:Hi guys,
I'm new here and it looks like a newcomer can ask a question without getting slammed too hard. I have several but lets start with gravitational lensing. Einstien predicted that the stars that should be hidden by the sun would be visible at an eclips because the sun's mass would bend the light coming from those stars making them appear out of place when compared to photographs taken when the sun is not near the light path. We see a similar event every day on earth. The sun appears to rise early and and set late because our atmosphere bends the light coming from the sun. ( For a long time I wondered why the day and night times were not equal on the equinox dates.) This bending of light is explained by light bending toward the denser part of the medium it is travelling through. So. Wouldn't there be plenty of "atmosphere" around the sun to account for the changes in apparent star position? Coronal mass ejections happen all the time and the "solar wind" must be denser closer to the sun making a regular lens around the sun. Was this lens accounted for in proving the gravitational lens.
Gene243 wrote:Could it not account for all of the red shift and aparent displacement of distant objects?
Gene243 wrote:The physical lens.
Gene243 wrote:The physical lens is the mass of the solar wind. It has mass ,can be measured, and causes some aparent shift in the position of stars photographed next to the eclipsed sun. I am asking if it is considered at all in these experiments.
Gene243 wrote:Do you know if anybody is doing any research in this area? I think this is modern science's answer and must be incorect. I agree it is more likely that I misunderstand some physical law than I see the universe more corectly than everyone els. But isn't red shift just a chromatic aboration on an interstellar scaled lens.
Markus Schwarz wrote:On the other hand, interstellar dust can lead to a sizable reddening, and has to be taken into account when measuring cosmic redshifts. This is because interstellar dust clouds can be huge compared to the extension of the sun's outer layers. There are plenty of groups around the world doing research on it.
Nereid wrote:Another thing to keep in mind is that gravitational lensing is achromatic...
Nereid wrote:IIRC, at least one of the microlensing searches (MACHO) uses/used the achromatic nature of gravitational lensing/deflection to select candidate events: they looked for stars which showed the same rise in brightness in their red band as in the blue (within their estimated uncertainties). While false positives are certain - if all there is is a single pair of datapoints - the light curve (apparent brightness as a function of time) of a microlensing event is very distinctive, so false positives are relatively easy to rule out (provided the event is not too faint, of course).
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests