a universe full of Bubble shaped lenses (theory)

i would like to propose a thought experiment
there are gravitational lenses "Einsteins" lenses caused from mass warping space time and forming a lense or area where the density and reflective index cause light to bend around an object of great mass.
i have proposed suns have a heliospherical lense created by the layers and densities of medium between the various layers of heliosphere/helioshock and the heliopause and the heliosheith and the medium out side the bow shock.


when veiwing a sun inside a galaxy we can use the galaxy as a magnifying glass
(macrolensing) and the lensing of the sun as a secondary magnifying glass (micro lense) and image things in the distence.
this magnifycation property has been studied with interest and shows there is lenses within lenses.
the galaxy itself creates a lense with its shape a double Convex lens.



which has the same properties as a double convex lense



depending on the angle of incedence (angle light encounters) this lens, medium density and reflective properties this galaxy can act as a magnifying lense in an optical sence. if the combined gravity of the galaxys mass is great enough it can also act as an einsteins gravitational lense or a combination of both.


imagine that all mass that is great enough to curve space time is producing these Bubbles of lensing area from gravity.
now imagine all the suns having heliospherical lenses from their heliospheres different layers and reflective properties and mediums.


so we have mass creating lenses we have heliospheres creating lenses and our galaxys shape creating lenses.
which creates a whole mess of distorted lenses and images




What happens when you are looking through a lense at a lense?
you have created a natural telescope that distorts distence perspective and size perspective.
but this telescope doesnt just increase the distence we can see
it distorts the location of the objects we are trying to image

example
if you were to look a a perfectly round spherical glass ball with a galaxy at its centre, no matter where you looked through the glass the image of the galaxy would be displayed.
now if the galaxy in the glass sphere was off center, depending on the direction you veiwed the center, would depend on the size and scale you witnessed the galaxy. as with different angles of incedence you have various focal points and at the correct angle the image is inbetween the angle of incedence and the focal point.
in this direction a distortion takes place but the galaxy is visable if not fuzzy.

i wounder if all the images we seen in the universe are a true representation of the size scale of there true nature or is it that we are witnessing the spherical representation of the image at the outter most edge of a lense?

i also wounder if the sperical nature of our heliospherical lense again offsets this distorted image ?
is the aspherical nature of of our heliosphere distorting the location of the image on the outter most edge of our helio sphere where we see the image wrapped around a our heliosphere and distorted yet again?

imagine being inside the spherical glass bubble at its center.
imagine a second lense focusing any incoming image slightly of center to the observer.
from our position in the center the object is off center and curved around the surface of the sphere so it is distorted in direction to the observer and is distorted in size to the observer.



does this expalin the strange nature of dark matter?
what if all observeable images were being distorted by these lenses without us realizing?

we would have a descrepency between location, size, and amount of matter we could see due to our altered perception of the universe.
dark matter has been used to fill the viod between what we see and what should be there but i makes sense that bubbles of lenses would acually account for the inconsistencies without the need for dark matter.

it also puts into question the location and distence of objects reletive to the distortions we see

XPLodER

Beautiful. I like it.

I've had similar thoughts, but you put it better than I could conjure it up.

s&f

Hello, I just came back ( from a year ago being here) and i must say, as the first post I am welcomed to, This is very nice. I hope there wouldnt be any rants here, and i hope you know there are holes in your theory, and when I'm done reviewing it O'll happilytell you. Nonetheless, this is a VERY intriguing theory, S & F for putting this togeter !!

Not a year....jus a couple of months

very interesting theory, I think it's possible.
I think Earth has her own lense thingy too.

Cool. And deep... reeeeally deep!

Question: Applying your theory, how much (if any) discrepancy do you postulate may have occurred between NASA's initial calculations of the distance to -and size of -the moon (prior to Apollo missions) and subsequent experiential data (during said missions) ?

God I hope that question makes sense because it was awfully hard to formulate-- my neurons hurt!

So what you are suggesting is, because of all these lens effects....objects may be FURTHER away than they appear?

Well some do for sure. We know this. But surely you aren't suggesting everything is affected this way?

Originally posted by mr10k
Hello, I just came back ( from a year ago being here) and i must say, as the first post I am welcomed to, This is very nice. I hope there wouldnt be any rants here, and i hope you know there are holes in your theory, and when I'm done reviewing it O'll happilytell you. Nonetheless, this is a VERY intriguing theory, S & F for putting this togeter !!

Not a year....jus a couple of months

edit on 17-11-2010 by mr10k because: (no reason given)

i have asked questions and i expect some of the idea will require refining
that what ats members are for, im sure what ever errors i have made will be pointed out
but this is what i want people to think about the problem and come to conclusions i may have missed or misunderstood

xploder

Originally posted by leira7
very interesting theory, I think it's possible.
I think Earth has her own lense thingy too.

the atmosphere is the earths lense
it can be looked at like the eye piece of a telescope
giving a medium for light to travel through

the mass of earth is too small to have a gravitational lensing effect but the atmosphere can refract light through its curvature so at the correct angle and conditions it can be said to be lensing light from our sun

xploder

Originally posted by new_here
Cool. And deep... reeeeally deep!

Question: Applying your theory, how much (if any) discrepancy do you postulate may have occurred between NASA's initial calculations of the distance to -and size of -the moon (prior to Apollo missions) and subsequent experiential data (during said missions) ?

God I hope that question makes sense because it was awfully hard to formulate-- my neurons hurt!

because the moon and indeed all the planets are inside the heliospherical lense they are not effected by this lensing to us or our telescopes.
its only objects out side our heliosphere that suffer this lense offset problem
so id say NASA is proberly very acurate with the sizing of the moon and other planets

xploder

Originally posted by harrytuttle
So what you are suggesting is, because of all these lens effects....objects may be FURTHER away than they appear?

Well some do for sure. We know this. But surely you aren't suggesting everything is affected this way?

i suggest everything is suseptable to the distortional effects of the heliospherical lensing if it is outside the heliosphere, the larger the distence from the center to the observer is the more distorted the location image is.

when you combine the optical effects of two lenses
1.our heliospherical lense
2.the heliospherical lense of a star under observance

you acually get a smaller representation of image of the object unless it is centered in the lense
giving the perspective of being further away while acually being much closer.
the relitive distence between observed and acual position is massive and could account for the difference of apparent matter and gravatational effects encountered.

its possable that because of the curvature and angle of incidence of light entering and leaving sphereical bubbles or lenses that objects appair must smaller and further away,

than they acually are

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


we are imaging images that are being displayed on curved surfaces
the image we are seeing is on the surface reflective layer of the heliolsphereical lense of the sun we are looking at.
if we are looking at a galaxysphere lens we are looking through our heliospherical lens then the galaxy shaped lens from the inside.
then we are imaging the outer reflective surface of an others galaxic lens and finally looking at a lens that is imaged from an image from the curvature of the target objects helio sphere

xploder

interesting nasa video about gravatational lensing


explains the suject well

xploder

Galaxy Cluster Abell 1689 Magnifies the Dark Universe


here is an animation of what a moving perspective can do when looking at a spherical shape that is lensing


the abell cluster video is pretty cool


abel 1689


xploder

I've entertained something like this before.

If you had a bubble around an area, and it was APPLIED like the cloaking-time-space concept which was in the news yesterday, in which you could effectively remove a chunk of space-time leaving that chunk without observation....couldn't you prevent an entire area from observing what is around it? Essentially showing them only the past? A lensing bubble with a space-time-cloaking effect?

What if the lack other detectable intelligence is not our technology not being able to detect them - what if what we are measuring is not just the past based on how long it took for light to reach us, but also we are literally having "current" observational data removed from record?

What if the light isn't as old or young as it appears to be to us? What if it's looping? Adding to the apparent "travel" time, or adding to the apparent distance travelled.

A solution to the Drake Equation - they are there. Reality is just being reflected off around our system.

Well, that's enough of that one for today.

second video in the nasa series



linky
www.youtube.com...
xploder

this is an unexpected "round ring" of dark matter video


kinda reminds me of looking at a "invisible " bubble that optically hides the Evidence of the mass confined within it
xploder

nice idea.

however the amount of focus given by gravitational lensing is minimal,it doesnt really magnify but rather re positions the location of objects to the eye of the observer.
the light is bent rather than focused because the galaxy is not concave rather it is a gravitational mass which bends light towards it rather than focusing it at one central point..
so galactic scale or solar scale gravitational lensing is not useful for telescopic purposes.

however advanced space time warping will allow for the creation of true gravitational lenses, concave warps in space time which causes light to be focused at one central point.

reply to post by MrRagnarok


the interesting argument to the fact that einsteins rings are only "seen" if the two optical lenses
1. helio
2. einsteins
are the right prescription to interacte as a telescope
if we could account for our "helio" lense we could vary the "prescription" using computer filter programs and find focal depth to interact with more lenses of different size and streanght

xploder

reply to post by Aeons


the yellow parts of the diagram dont reflect outwards from the sphereical helio lense


in these areas objects can be hidden

A great thread, buried amidst the chaff. Brilliant theory. What does this tell us of our perception of the apparent size of the universe?