This is truly spectacular. From NASA and ESA. comes this photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope which clearly proves [one] of Einstein’s theories – gravitational lensing.
Via Wikipedia:
The bending of light by a gravitational body was predicted by Albert Einstein in 1912, a few years before the publication of general relativity in 1916 (Renn et al. 1997). The ring effect was first mentioned in academic literature by Orest Chwolson in 1924. Einstein remarked upon this effect in 1936 in a paper prompted by a letter by a Czech engineer, R W Mandl, but stated,
Of course, there is no hope of observing this phenomenon directly. First, we shall scarcely ever approach closely enough to such a central line. Second, the angle β will defy the resolving power of our instruments.
Science vol 84 p 506 1936
Now there is.
These graceful arcs are examples of a cosmic phenomenon known as an Einstein ring. The ring is created as the light from a distant objects, like galaxies, pass by an extremely large mass, like this galaxy cluster. In this image, the light from a background galaxy is diverted and distorted around the massive intervening cluster and forced to travel along many different light paths toward Earth, making it seem as though the galaxy is in several places at once.
This image from Hubble is packed full of galaxies. A keen eye can spot exquisite elliptical galaxies and spectacular spirals, seen at various orientations: edge-on with the plane of the galaxy visible, face-on to show off magnificent spiral arms, and everything in between.The vast majority of these specks are galaxies, but to spot a foreground star from our own galaxy, you can look for a point of light with tell-tale diffraction spikes. The most alluring subject sits at the centre of the frame. With the charming name of SDSSJ0146-0929, the glowing central bulge is a galaxy cluster — a monstrous collection of hundreds of galaxies all shackled together in the unyielding grip of gravity.
With the charming name of SDSS J0146-0929, this is a galaxy cluster — a monstrous collection of hundreds of galaxies all shackled together in the unyielding grip of gravity. The mass of this galaxy cluster is large enough to severely distort the space-time around it, creating the odd, looping curves that almost encircle the center of the cluster.
Dark matter, is considered as a discovery…..due to Newton’s physics.
Dismissing, ignoring, mocking Newton’s physics, or trying to propagate as having better physics than that , it simply means “do please forget about Dark matter” and any clever method about it’s explanation, as that directly will confuse with the basic principle of this discovery.
Whatever brilliant hypothesis or explanations there contemplated, none really matter, if or when Dark matter considered.,,,, as it consist as a discovery, due to a detection as per Newton’s physics.
Dismissing or ignoring Newton simply means no Dark matter condition being there to contemplate in the first place.
Second, ignoring Einstein means no any what so ever connection, or no any main needed connection to be consider between Dark matter and Dark energy.
The most problematic condition in principle that happens to be, as The “m” in the famous Einstein’s equation means and clearly stands for mass and not for matter, when and when there is a very clear difference between matter and mass, as per Mendeleev’s atomic mass table of elements….
In my superficial understanding, the Newton’s physics have a closer and more direct link and connection to energy than mass, even when considered that somehow by a given point, may be considered as far closer to the concept of matter.
, the problem, as far as I can tell stands as for this point, in the simple approach, as simply as could be put,
‘Newton points out to some serious condition of a strange discovery, when in the same time, Einstein + Mendeleev do really falsify the actual astrophysics position on it, where and when Dark matter elevated to some special exotic and incredibly special status does not really make sense.
Again Dark matter to be connected to the condition of it’s energy needs to be either observable, or below the meaning of matter or energy, as per Einstein and Mendeleev. And without the possibility of it’s defined point condition of it’s mass, it happens to be just a phony matter, regardless.
cheers
No, it proves that something bends light. It doesn’t say what. The logic used in astronomy is as bad as climate change.
The Hubble first images an Einstein cross in 1990 before the first servicing mission. See:
http://hubblesite.org/image/22/news_release/1990
They have doing this for quite some time.
Clark
According to Wikipedia: “The bending of light by a gravitational body was predicted by Albert Einstein in 1912, a few years before the publication of general relativity in 1916 (Renn et al. 1997)”. For me this physical phenomenon shows that Newton was right. The smallest part of light is a photon and it has a mass. So the gravitional force has en effect on this photon mass. Right? If would be odd, if a gravitional force would not have an efffect on another mass.
Ahh but einstein’s view is that gravity is a field that manipulates space and time. The “force” of gravity doesn’t cause the Earth to orbit the Sun, rather mass alters the space so that the earth is moving in a straight line through a curved space.
Einstein explanation about the mechanism of the gravity may be better than that of Newton. During the Einstein’s time there were two persos (may be) who understood the theory of relativity. I confess that I do not do it. So, in this case the test that a large body bends the light’s part can be explained by the Newton’s theory as well.
http://milesmathis.com/pole.pdf
Miles notes that during a solar reversal the magnetism increases. This would agree with THE HYDRIDIC EARTH by V Larin as magnetism being created by the pressurized hydrogen within.
My point being that there is no gravitational lensing as it is exuded hydrogen.
Science as a whole is entering a crises, yet most scientists are unaware of it.
Back when I studied science at the university, the definition for science I was taught severely limited the scope of what science could study. But already at that time, there were “scientists” who didn’t limit their pronouncements to stay within those limits, yet were calling what they said as “science”. Their actions show that the definition of what is science is itself changing, eventually will come to the point that the crises will be widely recognized.
There is much that we don’t know, and the science that I was taught cannot answer, yet are treated as “scientific fact”. Is the speed of light constant, even in interstellar space? Science as I was taught cannot answer that, as we have no way to make such observations. But that belief is the basis for mathematical models such as Einstein’s Relativity Theory. What if the speed of light varies throughout the universe, what will it do to such mathematical models?
I was taught modern, empirical, natural science. The reliance on models as “evidence” and deification of “scientists” is a reversion to pre-modern science. So which version of “science” will win out in the long run? How are the simultaneous presentations of conflicting versions of “science” not a crises?
To give an example of taking belief as evidence is the question of luminous aether. Evidence as observed indicates that light is waves. There’s no example of wave propagation without a medium. If the speed of light is a constant, then that medium needs to be even and static. The Michelson Morley experiment disproved that theory concerning aether. But what if aether is lumpy, swirling and affected by gravity and/or magnetism? If that is true of aether, what does that say about the speed of light? Where the aether is thinner, could the speed of light be faster, even to an order of magnitude or two? Where the aether is thicker, such as around a large body gravitational / magnetic source, such as the sun, would it have a lensing effect, similar to the well-measured lensing effect of the atmosphere around the earth? If aether is affected by gravity, would that not indicate that aether itself exerts a gravitational force? Could that be the source of “dark matter”? The Michelson Morley experiment merely disproved one model of aether, not the concept of aether itself. I bring this up merely as an example of where an honest scientist needs to say “We don’t know.”
The concept of lumpy, swirling aether can explain such Einsteinian theories as time-dilation, space-time warping, light lensing, possibly even gravity waves, and what else?
How many other “scientific discoveries” are merely mathematical models? How is this not an indication of a crises in science itself?