Exposing the Myth of Gravitational Lensing | Space News

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Makes perfect sense to me.
2. Supposedly time slows closer you get to the Sun & Mercury's orbit is elliptical but supposedly because of space time, the orbit processes each time Mercury goes around the Sun. I guess all you have to do is find a comet or other object with a elliptical orbit who's orbit does not process as it dips in close to the Sun near Mercury's orbit.
3. What im wondering about is how Einstein cosmology says they can explain the orbit of Mercury mathematically with the curvature of space/time. What is going on there?
4. what about star clusters orbiting small invisible but incredibly dense objects, that seem to only be explained by black holes?
   the distortion of light and red shifting could very well be due to plasma clouds/neutrino's (or lack thereof) , but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't black holes.
5. This is retarded, do you realize the model your presenting doesn't make lensing effects that look anything like what we observe? Therefore it's not an alternative solution. First, atmospheres are super tiny compared to the stellar object, but are less than a millionth the size of the distorted space around a star. The lensing effect would be so small you probably could not detect it. Second, the shape. To get the idea, space time being curved is huge, so it's like light going through a curved prism. It gets stretched, the model predicts curves exactly like what we see. An atmosphere is tiny and has different geometry, so the shape would look massively different. For example, grab a marble and look through it. It can be a good stand in for a stellar object made of 100% refracting atmosphere. A real star, planet, or super-massive blackhole, even if it had an atmosphere, would only have it along the very top layer. This is important because if the center of the marble was opaque you'd notice that you cannot see objects directly behind the marble. Only when it is clear, you'll see how it doesn't project the image far away from the marble either, it created the image on top of the marbles location because with a physical lens, you actually need to look at the lens to see the distortions caused by the lens. Stars are super far away so most of them are literally just 1-10 pixels of information. The distortions we see are obviously huge and appear far away from the foreground star/galaxy, the lensing effects are not observed as part of the star's pixel, obviously. Also, we can and do observe things behind a star when it has a large lensing effect, which wouldn't be possible from a thin atmosphere. Third, most objects that cause this lensing intrinsically don't have atmospheres because they are neutron stars, black holes, and even entire galaxies, and other super massive objects. Fourth, you're an idiot and I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this basic ass shit to you. If you believe this crap, you are hopelessly lost and should question your life. Fifth, lots of Doctors are wrong all the time. This is why staying up to date with a field's publications is important. So when some guy that's been debunked by basic tier shit keeps pushing his thing and wants to sell books and crap about it, he's just a con artist, not a scientist. And he's using his shit tier degree as an appeal to authority rather than reasoning a sound argument.
6. fascinating
7. Yes, but can Dr. Gupta go poo in loo?
8. Oh look - the holocaust deniers when it comes to the field of physics. What absolute morons.
9. awesome
10. Nikola Tesla proved Albert Einstein Mathematics was...
    Telsa called it Mathematic Garb...
    Recently Tesla on Mathematics. he dated 12/12/12 Found in phx could change math.some say may Turn it on its ear.. Nikola been gone he's still kicking ass.
    you gotta love that.
11. Hand slaps head. Pseudoscience. By all means, write a scientific paper laying out your EU. State your cohesive theory that's explains gravity waves, gravitational lensing, what gravity is, why there is a cosmic speed limit.... please, write this paper.
    
    Until you do, you are nothing more than a charlatan...a snake oil salesman.
    
    PERIOD.
12. I like!
    SciPro
13. This was excellent.
14. First of all, I love what you guys are doing, but, this time you are wrong. If light were to "redshift' as it leaves a galaxy, it would also blueshift as it entered our galaxy, nullifying this effect (unless there were a large density difference between galaxies). This theory in nonsensical. I agree that there is likely a redshift as light leaves a galaxy and there the speed of light is likely larger in the space between galaxies, but this cannot be used to explain our observations for the reason I stated above.
15. incredible. so simple.😁
16. Excellent presentation.  The frontier of magnetic refraction has only just been recognized.  Science has discovered that early galaxies are metal poor compared to our galaxies now.  Is this another clue leading to the inclusion of magnetics as a power to be reckoned with in our explanation of the effects we see in our own solar system?
17. best ive seen last few years i came to many the same conclusions. optical acceleration expansion of the universe as seen on the inside of our atmospheric screen we look against.
18. There's no "black hole" in the center of Sagittarius A there, just a Plasmoid.
19. This just clarified what I have been saying about this for several years. Mainstream science tries to use these phenomena to say the was a "Big Bang", the "Universe is expanding", "Lightspeed is a constant", and "Gravity bends light by warping Space/Time". At the same time they will ignore something that does not fit, or write addendums to their theories to make it fit.
    
    The thing is, anyone that does not know how a refractive lens works should not be using such in observations of the known universe. I have noted the similarities to optical lens effects in the photos of what is being called "Gravitational Lensing" for quite some time, and can say it is a perfect match to what is observed in both. I also know that it is now shown to be true that the interstellar medium is not a true vacuum, and that all large bodies have extensive though rarified atmospheres. Such atmospheres refracting the light passing through them are a more likely explanation of what is observed than the theory of gravitational lensing; especially since near certain parts of space thought to harbor massive black holes we do not see lensing as the theory has predicted.