dryson's photon "physics"

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dryson

Guest
I posted a similar question a while ago. I believe I worded it as "is there a limit to how short the wavelength of a photon could be" the shorter the wavelength the higher the energy. I recall the consensus at the time was that there was no theoretical limit to how short a photons wavelength could be.
The question this: We know that in space the temperature of space is absolute 0.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/379068main_Temp ... _Space.pdf

We also know that the coldness of space effect's the magnetism of atoms.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/p ... y00146.htm

Cold can have an effect on magnetism, because cold can have effect of how
fast charged particles move. It is the motion of charged particles, usually
electrons around a nucleus, that produces magnetic fields. Cooling a metal
can make the motion within less random, thus allowing more atoms to line up
with each other. This increases the magnetic field of the material. On the
other hand, making a magnet very hot will cause more random motion,
resulting in less allignment of molecules and less megnetism.
So could the light photon be effected in such a similiar manner? That where the longer the wavelength of the photon would mean that less energy is present. A decrease in energy of the photon would allow a colder area asround the atom or photon coupled with the fact that the colder an atom or photon is means that the very processes within the atom or photon would increases magnetically.

Bascially as the wavelength lengthen's the photon becomes "colder" in the sense of the heat associated with the length of the wavelength of the photon. At some point it might also be able to speculate that a light photon would transform into a atom.

So one way to theorize on how light might change into an atom is that as each photon goes through a change in it's wavelength propogation of producing longer wavelength's that are generating less heat there might be a point at which the propogation of wavelengths break down so that the actuall propogation of wavelengths begin to propogate in broken wavelengths of positive and negative energertic values.



[quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon][/quote]

If you'll look at the standard model of particle physics from the Wiki Link I can see something that you might also be able to see.

The physics model has four particles similar to an atom's particles.

e[super]-[/super]
e[super]+[/super]
q[super]-[/super]
and
q

What I am seeing is that the e[super]-[/super](electron),e[super]+[/super](positron) and q[super]-[/super] are creating an electromagnetic attraction between the e[super]-[/super], e[super]+[/super] and q[super]-[/super]. When the e[super]-[/super] and q[super]-[/super] come close to the e[super]+[/super] the electromagnetic fields of both particles repell each other due to being like fields but of different quantative values. When the e[super]-[/super] and q[super]-[/super] are forced away from the e[super]+[/super] to a distance where their fields do not effect each other the e[super]+[/super] field will then attract both particles back towards it thus starting the action of pulsing.

The q particle would be similar to the neutron particle that would create a buffer between the actions of the e[super]-[/super](electron),e[super]+[/super](positron) and q[super]-[/super] particles.

So as the wavelengths of a photon become more broken and longer and produce less heat the coldness of space causes each of the photon wavelengths to become more magnetically charged that change into little spheres of charged energy. As the now forming electrons and protons attract and repel to each other the neutrons become trapped between the protons thus forming an atom.

Depending upon the type of light and the amount of energy created by each frequency of light wavelength will determine the type of atom created which based upon the light photon's wavelength length.
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Re: Is there an upper limit to the energy of a photon?

dryson":1t0ls7t7 said:
I posted a similar question a while ago. I believe I worded it as "is there a limit to how short the wavelength of a photon could be" the shorter the wavelength the higher the energy. I recall the consensus at the time was that there was no theoretical limit to how short a photons wavelength could be.
The question this: We know that in space the temperature of space is absolute 0.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/379068main_Temp ... _Space.pdf
No, "we" do not know that. Where in your link (above) does it say that ? What your link does say ...

1. Although the vacuum of space has no temperature, objects traveling through space do. The International Space Station (ISS) has many different temperatures in various locations and these temperatures are constantly changing. There are many factors responsible for these varying temperatures. Two of the more significant factors are that the ISS is made of many different materials and it is constantly moving between sunlight and shade. In fact, ISS orbits Earth once every 90 minutes with a “day” and “night” occurring during each orbit.

2. The temperatures that objects experience in space are often quite extreme compared to what the same objects would experience here on Earth. For instance, NASA’s bulky white spacesuits that astronauts wear on spacewalks can have a temperature difference of up to 275 degrees F from one side to the other. This can happen if an astronaut has one side of the suit facing the sun with the other side facing deep space.



dryson":1t0ls7t7 said:
We also know that the coldness of space effect's the magnetism of atoms.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/p ... y00146.htm

Cold can have an effect on magnetism, because cold can have effect of how
fast charged particles move. It is the motion of charged particles, usually
electrons around a nucleus, that produces magnetic fields. Cooling a metal
can make the motion within less random, thus allowing more atoms to line up
with each other. This increases the magnetic field of the material. On the
other hand, making a magnet very hot will cause more random motion,
resulting in less allignment of molecules and less megnetism.
OK.

dryson":1t0ls7t7 said:
So could the light photon be effected in such a similiar manner? That where the longer the wavelength of the photon would mean that less energy is present. A decrease in energy of the photon would allow a colder area asround the atom or photon coupled with the fact that the colder an atom or photon is means that the very processes within the atom or photon would increases magnetically.

Bascially as the wavelength lengthen's the photon becomes "colder" in the sense of the heat associated with the length of the wavelength of the photon. At some point it might also be able to speculate that a light photon would transform into a atom.
In a word ... no. Try to remember that we see light from things very far away. That light has travelled through space. It's photons have not changed into atoms. Light is not affected by the "coldness" or "hotness" of space.
 
D

dryson

Guest
Re: Is there an upper limit to the energy of a photon?

In a word ... no. Try to remember that we see light from things very far away. That light has travelled through space. It's photons have not changed into atoms. Light is not affected by the "coldness" or "hotness" of space.
Where is the proof to support your assumptions that I am wrong when all of the proof that I have presented is based upon all things being relative to one another in one equal and opposite occurance of reaction?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Is there an upper limit to the energy of a photon?

dryson, please stop posting your made up Physics in the Physics forum, or I'll have to split the thread to the Unexplained, and make up my own title for it.

Your ignorance of Physics is so profound, it can not be tolerated in this forum. So either stop posting here, or be prepared for every topic you derail with your imaginary, ignorant understanding of physics to be split off. You have exhausted the patience of the moderator team.
 
D

dryson

Guest
Re: Is there an upper limit to the energy of a photon?

In a word ... no. Try to remember that we see light from things very far away. That light has travelled through space. It's photons have not changed into atoms. Light is not affected by the "coldness" or "hotness" of space.
Light has to be effected by the coldness of space. There is no other reason why a light photon travelling at c would fall into a blackhole since light does not have any mass. Since light does not have any mass or material inside of the photon that is magentically attractable, then a light photon would be able to pass through a blackhole without any problem.

The coldness of space does change a light photon's properties. Once the light photon's properties have been changed where the wavelength becomes longer and more magnetically susceptible to the effects of the magnetism of the blackhole is the cause of the light photon being pulled into the blackhole where the energy of the light photon is then possibly converted into x-rays that are then able to escape the pull of the blackhole.
 
3

3488

Guest
Dryson, a black hole is most likely a super dense object, a collapsed massive star, several times the mass of our Sun, condensed into a sphere with perhaps the diameter of a city. Nothing would 'pass through' that.

I know that I am not a physicist or a cosmologist as Planetary Science is my thing, I understand that light photons can enter orbit around a black hole, but would not 'fall into or onto' one as that would break the laws of relativity, i.e it's velocity would exceed 1c. Someone else who knows more about this than me can either confirm or refute this.

Please dryson, take on board what Wayne has said. If you do not, you will continue to be ridiculed & quite rightly so. The other posters here, like Wayne, Mee-n-Mac & adrenalynn, do not take enjoyment from it, only that you bring it on yourself.

Andrew.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
More "frustration" really. I don't tolerate fools well, and misinformation yelled from the tops of buildings _really_ annoys me.

As best as anyone can tell, the blackhole warps spacetime. As we can see as we increase gravitation (and many many experiments have proven) the more we warp spacetime, the more we bend light.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Of course, that's only true in the real Universe, not dryson's fantasy land...
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Totally agreed. But it's almost like a job to present a simple, reasonable, REAL explanation for those that stumble upon Dryson's made-up BS. Otherwise it's unimpaired damage.
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
dryson":39791hm8 said:
..At some point it might also be able to speculate that a light photon would transform into a atom. ..
I'm glad I read far enough to catch this little gem.

I had better go grab some SPF 10x[super]34[/super] sunscreen, just in case.

.
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Re: Is there an upper limit to the energy of a photon?

dryson":s9mun3rb said:
In a word ... no. Try to remember that we see light from things very far away. That light has travelled through space. It's photons have not changed into atoms. Light is not affected by the "coldness" or "hotness" of space.
Where is the proof to support your assumptions that I am wrong when all of the proof that I have presented is based upon all things being relative to one another in one equal and opposite occurance of reaction?
I wish I could understand the above well enough to refute it. Alas I don't "get" what you're saying other than to demand some proof. What is it, specifically, you'd like me to "prove" ?

That space is not at absolute zero ? Your own link did that.

That light doesn't "freeze" into atoms due to the "coldness" of space ?
I'm afraid it's up to you to present some "proof" that they do. You'll find that hard to do I suspect. Again we can see light from very distant galaxies. That's a fact. How do you explain that this light hasn't "frozen" into atoms depsite billions of light years of travel through space ?

That light (photons) don't become magnetic in some form as they travel through the "coldness" of space ?
Again how would you explain that we can see light from far away despite it's passage through the Earth's magnetic field ? You should know that this magnetic field changes from moment to moment and that, if your idea was true, the light from those distant stars would be distorted, from moment to moment, as a result. And not just here on the Earth's surface but also for the Hubble Space telescope, above the Earth's atmosphere but within it's magnetic field. That the HST doesn't "see" these distorted images should tell you you're mistaken.

Your inability to understand how a blackhole "captures" light is ... understandable. It's very odd and not at all commonsense physics. Yet the distortion of space (and time) by mass is a proven theory. Rather than trying to invent your own theory, you might want to put some effort into understanding the present theory. Then, after you've mastered that, you can try to find a better way to explain the universe.
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
adrenalynn":315g9beg said:
Totally agreed. But it's almost like a job to present a simple, reasonable, REAL explanation for those that stumble upon Dryson's made-up BS. Otherwise it's unimpaired damage.
Almost ? ;)
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Re: Is there an upper limit to the energy of a photon?

dryson":3ft2sidc said:
The coldness of space does change a light photon's properties. Once the light photon's properties have been changed where the wavelength becomes longer and more magnetically susceptible to the effects of the magnetism of the blackhole is the cause of the light photon being pulled into the blackhole where the energy of the light photon is then possibly converted into x-rays that are then able to escape the pull of the blackhole.
I almost forgot this point. What makes you think x-rays escape the pull of a blackhole ? You do understand that x-rays are nothing more than a shorter wavelength of "light" ... don't you ?

 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
MnM, you've hit on the crux of the problem...he understands almost nothing about real physics, as has been shown over and over and over and over and over....
 
D

dryson

Guest
More "frustration" really. I don't tolerate fools well, and misinformation yelled from the tops of buildings _really_ annoys me.

As best as anyone can tell, the blackhole warps spacetime. As we can see as we increase gravitation (and many many experiments have proven) the more we warp spacetime, the more we bend light.
Space and time doesn not warp nor does light.

1.Space does not warp as space is the absolute of nothing. Space is where energetic processes take place in yet space cannot be effected upon nor can space effect upon any energetic causality. Space is the medium that cannot be effected or effect upon any energetic causility.

If space were able to be effected in the manner that is talked about then that would make space a particle of some type. But if space was a particle then said particle would not be considered space but a particle residing in space.

2.Time does not warp either as time is a measurable distance of length. A length of measureable distance that has a beginning and an end or starting points A and ending point B where various event's take place along the time line. This type of time is called Biological Linear Time or BLT. BLT is how biologicals capable of advanced thought's and mechanition's such as humans eastablish a history of record keeping of a single person or group of people's live's so that once they are gone the next generation can look back and ask how do we do it better than they did it? How do we better ourselves so our future kin will have it better then we did or what is called progress.
Energetic Biological Time or EBT is the amount of energy used by the various cells in a human body to functionally create a single unit of BLT based upon numerous events of cells dividing and then merging with other cells to create the energy necessary to create a single unit of BLT. It takes a certain amount of distance or time for the cells to divide and then travel to a new cells location and then merge with said cell to create energy.
Then there is Quantative Time or QT. QT is the distance of measureable length between two atoms of energetic properties where both atoms first create a measurable distance between each other before they interact and then create another measureable distance between each as they repell each other or interact in such a way to release their stored energy potential. We can combine
and EBT to define how biological cells and energetic particles function together on the same plane of time to create mitochondrion. Off the beaten path, if we can figure out how to cut the signal of the mitochondria from sending the singal for a cell to die which is then replaced by another new cell which eventually causes the mitochondria to die itself due to exertion which then leads to a reduced number of mitochondria cells in the body to create new cells we would be able to live longer. Actually we wouldn't need to cut the ability of the mitochondria's ability to signal cells when to die we would just need to control them in order to kill the cells when we wanted them to die as well as replacing the aged cells with new ones. But that is for another discussion involving gravity and UV radiation effecting the mitochondria cells.

Where was I? Oh yes once we combine energetic time and biological time we then have QEBT or Quantative Eneregtic Biological Time.

So no time cannot be bent mold or shaped to create some terrific event of spacial distortion.

Light does not bend either. If we were to look at light through a convex lense the light would appear to be bending as the light travels across the bulging surface. But if we were to look at the source of the light the light photon would still be traveling in a straight trajectory from it's point of origin. The bending of light is an optical illusion, another literary trick to draw people in who are not informed and easily swayed by the mystical aspect's of life.

If we were to use a concave lense the light would appear to bend inwards across the surface of the lense. Nothing more than an optical illusion.

Now if we were to place a flat lense in between the convex and concave lenses the light would appear as it should appear traveling in a straight path from it's point of origin.

Now the real question of this experiment is would we see all three forms of the same light photon in convex, straight and concave form if we looked through the concave lense through to the other side of the convex lense?

Would the image look like (l) or would it look like )l(?

How can gravity effect light? Gravity only effects particles that have mass. Light does not have any mass because it's wavelength is so short and produces so much energy that the ability of the coldness of space to draw the heat out of the photon to create magnetism in the form of electron's, proton's and neutron's is not present.

Let's look at it this way. We have two golden pot's surrounded by planks of wood. The golden pot will represent the photon at the center, the wooden planks will represent the wavelength's actuall length associated with the type of photon. The first golden pot has planks of wood that each measure twelve feet in length. The second pot of gold has wooden planking that measure's one foot in length which will represent a light photon travelling at c. In structural engineering we know that the longer a structural member is the more easily the member will break the shorter the member the less easier the member will break.

I will play the coldness of space. I begin jumping up and down on both set's of planks. The longer planks begin to snap at various points because of their length and frequency of emittance that allows the coldness of space to eventually break through into the light photon's core that change's the particle nature of the photon into an atom. The other planks continue to hold under the repeated jumping far longer than the first planks did.

The reason why a blackhole effects a light photon is because the coldness at the center of a blackhole is even colder than the absolute coldness of space which is able to break down the wavelength's of the light photon until the light photon is turned into an atom with particles taht are effected by gravity which then pulls the atom into the blackhole.

The reason why x rays, gamma rays etc. are able to break free of a black hole is because their wavelengths are even shorter than the light photon's wavelengths and are eminatted so fast that the coldness of the center of the black hole is not able to convert them into particles that have mass.

We cannot be satisified with what has been already discovered as the fact of all reality. Science must continue to push and crawl through the mud of the Universe in order to continue to discover and make the next generation better than we had it otherwise science and the planet on a whole will become like the ancient kingdom's of the old world, nothing but history and wind swept and time eroded monument's.

The difference between today and then is that we have the ability to do what they didn't and that is to evolve and elave the planet in search of the number one question with subscript. Who are we really and is there anyone else in the Universe. Sticking with conventional science and physics models of a world already in the history books will lead us into the tomb of the time eroded pyramids.
 
Z

ZincSaucier

Guest
Long time reader, first time poster here. I've never really felt the need to post before, but I've never seen a statement so completely and utterly wrong before. I'm at a loss for words...

Space and time doesn not warp nor does light.

1.Space does not warp as space is the absolute of nothing. Space is where energetic processes take place in yet space cannot be effected upon nor can space effect upon any energetic causality. Space is the medium that cannot be effected or effect upon any energetic causility.
 
D

Danggali

Guest
Wow Dr Dryson ... you sure cop a lotta flack ...... but in some ways your right. Or right the way I tink ..... :twisted:

QM uses your background independence of Space and time. But Space, according to QM is not nothing .... fulla virtual gluons. GR uses the 'warping' method so eagerly defended by your detractors ......

cool bananas ... greg
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
dryson":jd5wsk80 said:
Space and time doesn not warp nor does light.

1.Space does not warp as space is the absolute of nothing. Space is where energetic processes take place in yet space cannot be effected upon nor can space effect upon any energetic causality. Space is the medium that cannot be effected or effect upon any energetic causility.

If space were able to be effected in the manner that is talked about then that would make space a particle of some type. But if space was a particle then said particle would not be considered space but a particle residing in space.
Leaving the silliness about turning "space in a particle of some type", your assertion is noted ... and rejected. See the experimental evidence presented below.

dryson":jd5wsk80 said:
2.Time does not warp either as time is a measurable distance of length. A length of measureable distance that has a beginning and an end or starting points A and ending point B where various event's take place along the time line. This type of time is called Biological Linear Time or BLT. BLT is how biologicals capable of advanced thought's and mechanition's such as humans eastablish a history of record keeping of a single person or group of people's live's so that once they are gone the next generation can look back and ask how do we do it better than they did it? How do we better ourselves so our future kin will have it better then we did or what is called progress.
Energetic Biological Time or EBT is the amount of energy used by the various cells in a human body to functionally create a single unit of BLT based upon numerous events of cells dividing and then merging with other cells to create the energy necessary to create a single unit of BLT. It takes a certain amount of distance or time for the cells to divide and then travel to a new cells location and then merge with said cell to create energy.
Then there is Quantative Time or QT. QT is the distance of measureable length between two atoms of energetic properties where both atoms first create a measurable distance between each other before they interact and then create another measureable distance between each as they repell each other or interact in such a way to release their stored energy potential. We can combine
and EBT to define how biological cells and energetic particles function together on the same plane of time to create mitochondrion. Off the beaten path, if we can figure out how to cut the signal of the mitochondria from sending the singal for a cell to die which is then replaced by another new cell which eventually causes the mitochondria to die itself due to exertion which then leads to a reduced number of mitochondria cells in the body to create new cells we would be able to live longer. Actually we wouldn't need to cut the ability of the mitochondria's ability to signal cells when to die we would just need to control them in order to kill the cells when we wanted them to die as well as replacing the aged cells with new ones. But that is for another discussion involving gravity and UV radiation effecting the mitochondria cells.

Where was I? Oh yes once we combine energetic time and biological time we then have QEBT or Quantative Eneregtic Biological Time.

So no time cannot be bent mold or shaped to create some terrific event of spacial distortion.
So you think the above nonsense somehow presents an argument that the passage of time is unaffected by anything ? Instead of living in your own little fantasy world why don't you try to explain the results of experiments done in the real world. How do you explain the results of the Hafele–Keating experiment for a start ? Or the Pound–Rebka experiment ? Alas you won't even try because you won't tolerate reality seeping into your fantasy.

dryson":jd5wsk80 said:
Light does not bend either. If we were to look at light through a convex lense the light would appear to be bending as the light travels across the bulging surface. But if we were to look at the source of the light the light photon would still be traveling in a straight trajectory from it's point of origin. The bending of light is an optical illusion, another literary trick to draw people in who are not informed and easily swayed by the mystical aspect's of life.

If we were to use a concave lense the light would appear to bend inwards across the surface of the lense. Nothing more than an optical illusion.

Now if we were to place a flat lense in between the convex and concave lenses the light would appear as it should appear traveling in a straight path from it's point of origin.

Now the real question of this experiment is would we see all three forms of the same light photon in convex, straight and concave form if we looked through the concave lense through to the other side of the convex lense?

Would the image look like (l) or would it look like )l(?
First the ability of a lens to "bend" light is not an optical illusion. That you don't even understand how a lens refracts light, or even believe that it does, should be a clear sign to others to dismiss your musings for the nonsense they are. Have you ever focussed the Sun's light to a small spot with a magniying glass ? What do you think is happening ? Is it some "illusion" or are the light rays actully converging on that 1 small spot ?

Second the deflection of light via mass is different from refraction.

dryson":jd5wsk80 said:
How can gravity effect light? Gravity only effects particles that have mass. Light does not have any mass because it's wavelength is so short and produces so much energy that the ability of the coldness of space to draw the heat out of the photon to create magnetism in the form of electron's, proton's and neutron's is not present.
A certain amount of flexibility is desireable but you've just contradicted yourself in the same single thread. Did you not just a few posts above say the "cold of space" would turn photons into particles with mass ? As for gravity affecting light, again try explaining some real world results. In particular try explaining why starlight was deflected by the Sun's gravity.

Some easy reading material ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_g ... by_the_Sun

A nice illustration ...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/deflection-delay.html

The 1919 paper ...
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 71-581/291

dryson":jd5wsk80 said:
Let's look at it this way. We have two golden pot's surrounded by planks of wood. The golden pot will represent the photon at the center, the wooden planks will represent the wavelength's actuall length associated with the type of photon. The first golden pot has planks of wood that each measure twelve feet in length. The second pot of gold has wooden planking that measure's one foot in length which will represent a light photon travelling at c. In structural engineering we know that the longer a structural member is the more easily the member will break the shorter the member the less easier the member will break.

I will play the coldness of space. I begin jumping up and down on both set's of planks. The longer planks begin to snap at various points because of their length and frequency of emittance that allows the coldness of space to eventually break through into the light photon's core that change's the particle nature of the photon into an atom. The other planks continue to hold under the repeated jumping far longer than the first planks did.
The problem with arguing by analogy is that the analogy can be stretched to the point where it no longer applies to the argument. Your's made no sense from the get go. So you propose that photons have, at their core, an atom with mass ? That this atom is somehow sheilded by ... well what exactly ? What made you think this ?

dryson":jd5wsk80 said:
The reason why a blackhole effects a light photon is because the coldness at the center of a blackhole is even colder than the absolute coldness of space which is able to break down the wavelength's of the light photon until the light photon is turned into an atom with particles taht are effected by gravity which then pulls the atom into the blackhole.

The reason why x rays, gamma rays etc. are able to break free of a black hole is because their wavelengths are even shorter than the light photon's wavelengths and are eminatted so fast that the coldness of the center of the black hole is not able to convert them into particles that have mass.
Weren't you claiming just above that the BH caused the wavelengths to get longer ? How short were these wavelengths to start with ? Besides, what makes you think x-rays escape a BH ? Where did you get this idea or is it another thing you totally made up ?

dryson":jd5wsk80 said:
We cannot be satisified with what has been already discovered as the fact of all reality. Science must continue to push and crawl through the mud of the Universe in order to continue to discover and make the next generation better than we had it otherwise science and the planet on a whole will become like the ancient kingdom's of the old world, nothing but history and wind swept and time eroded monument's.

The difference between today and then is that we have the ability to do what they didn't and that is to evolve and elave the planet in search of the number one question with subscript. Who are we really and is there anyone else in the Universe. Sticking with conventional science and physics models of a world already in the history books will lead us into the tomb of the time eroded pyramids.
Your mixing of metaphors is on par with your understanding of how the real world works.
 
D

dryson

Guest
Like I said if a flat lense was used to observe the Universe we would not see any of the images bent as they are which is due to the curvature of the lense being used which is based off of the curvature of the human eye.

The Universe is not bent or bending like is suggested because if the Universe was bending then everytime I look at something the edges would seem to be bent but they are not. Explain why I and you do not see the objects around us bent like they are in lensing.

Gravitational lensing is similar to how the black box selection of how your t.v.'s image is seen. Black Boxing takes the top and bottom portion of the picture away so that more of the left and right of what is being viewed can be seen.

If we were to look at an image of the Universe with a flat version of a lense most of the images seen would simply not fit into the image taken thus requiring more time and money to capture the images. But through gravitatioanl lensing the images or the light created by the images is bent around the curvature of the lense so that the entire image is wrapped around in smaller area so that less time and money are spent on collecting such images.

At work I have to wear safety glasses. The safety glasses are curved. When I walk by a light somtimes the light seems to bend from one area of the lense to another area of the lense mostly from front to the bakc of the lense. But because of the fact that I do not wear glasses on a daily basis I know that the light is not actually bending or being bent but is traveling from the source of emittance to my eye in a straight line and that the glasses I am wearing do not effect the trajectory of the light photon to my eye but has only reflected the light across the surface of the curvature as an optical illusion. The light photon still travels in straight line regardless of the type of lense used.

Unless the type of lense used has a micro blackhole emitter located at the focal point of the curvature, blackholes being the ONLY known force if the Universe to affect a light photon, then the light is not actually being bent.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
dryson":qd51nco5 said:
Like I said if a flat lense was used to observe the Universe we would not see any of the images bent as they are which is due to the curvature of the lense being used which is based off of the curvature of the human eye.
No. The concept of magnification has little to do with the curvature of the eye and everything to do with refraction.

Explain why I and you do not see the objects around us bent like they are in lensing.
Scale, distance, focal point(s).

Gravitational lensing is similar to how the black box selection of how your t.v.'s image is seen. Black Boxing takes the top and bottom portion of the picture away so that more of the left and right of what is being viewed can be seen.
No. What you're talking about is pan-and-scan and letterboxing (not "black boxing" - rofl!). And has nothing to do with this. Have you ever looked through a microscope or telescope? Have you ever seen a microscope or telescope, pair of binoculars, A WATER DROPLET?!?!

If we were to look at an image of the Universe with a flat version of a lense most of the images seen would simply not fit into the image taken thus requiring more time and money to capture the images.
ROFL! No. Just simply no. A "flat version" of a lens would have zero magnification.

At work I have to wear safety glasses. The safety glasses are curved. When I walk by a light somtimes the light seems to bend from one area of the lense
Aspherical artifacting. Buy glasses that aren't junk. That's an error in the grinding.

Apparently very little it would seem.

that the light is not actually bending or being bent
It is being refracted. Which means it is having its direction changed. Due to poor construction through the transfer medium.

optical illusion. The light photon still travels in straight line regardless of the type of lense used.
What in the world do you think an "optical illusion" is?!?!

Unless the type of lense used has a micro blackhole emitter located at the focal point of the curvature, blackholes being the ONLY known force if the Universe to affect a light photon,
ROFL! That would be a great big fat "no".

then the light is not actually being bent.
Your parents must be proud of your scientific acumen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY