German elections, when to short the euro, or buy it? - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
If this were so, then light from a distant star on its way to us near a massive object, such as a black hole, would experience a much larger redshift than light from a similar star not on its way to us in an anomalous gravitational field. No such thing is found in practice.
Sorry about the off-topic.
Thanks for the insight.
I think that is exactly what is happening. Light from a star passing in the vicinity of a massive black hole and curving should reach an observer from Earth with redshift. And moreover, the observer must see the same star in another place (or places), because in addition to the path of light from the star along the curved black hole's path, there is a "non-curved" path. I am not an astrophysicist, but I think that such effect should be noticed already. I'll look it up on the world wide web now.
Если бы это было так, то свет от далекой звезды, проходящий по пути к нам вблизи массивного объекта, например черной дыры, испытывал бы гораздо большее красное смещение, чем свет от похожей звезды не попавший по пути к нам в аномальное гравитационное поле. На практике такого не обнаруживается.
Сорри оффтоп.
Nikolai Semko:
Thank you for your insight.
I think that is exactly what is happening. Light from a star, passing in the vicinity of a massive black hole and bending should reach an observer from Earth with a redshift. And moreover, the observer must see the same star in another place (or places), because in addition to the path of light from the star along the curved black hole path, there is a "non-curved" path. I am not an astrophysicist, but I think that such effect should be noticed already. I'm going to search the world wide web now.
I found it. Like this article here. This effect is called a gravitational lens. And I quote:"it wasn't until 1979 that the first gravitational lens was discovered -- the image of quasar Q0957+561 had its "twin" with the same spectrum andredshift."
So in practice it does show up.
I hope you understand the curvature of space I am talking about.
Just in case I will try to explain.
By analogy with two-dimensional surface of the Earth, which in three dimensions is closed to itself and forms a sphere. And if we move straight on the surface of the Earth all the time, we will return to the same point from which we came. It's the same with our three-dimensional space, which is self-contained in a four-dimensional space-time continuum. And if you fly in any fast spaceship straight ahead all the time, you will also return to the same point from which you left. That is, just as the surface of the Earth is infinite but finite (has a specific area but no edge), so our universe is infinite but has a specific volume of N cubic Giga-parsecs. And it is even, though in passing, mentioned in the 11th grade astronomy textbook.
And I repeat, I believe (probably, not only me), that the redshift effect of distant objects in the Universe is observed just due to "curvature" of space-time continuum, but not due to the Doppler effect. I understand that many will consider it heresy, but our Universe is not expanding and there was no Big Bang.
This topic may seem to be completely off-topic. In fact, stock trading applies the same laws as astrophysics: there are gravitation processes here and there, black holes and wormholes, matter and antimatter, curvature of space, time density, etc., etc. So it is not superfluous to look at stars sometimes and look for analogy in our universe.
You are not a physicist by training?
You're not a physicist by training?
No, Dim, I'm not a physicist by training.
Probably an editor at some print publication? The post has been corrected more than a dozen times =)
Probably an editor at some print publication? The post has been corrected over a dozen times =)
only once.
No, Dim, I am not a physicist by training.
And do you realise that you, challenging the underlying cosmological scientific hypothesis, give as evidence a link to an article from the "Mystery Book: UFOs" website, which has sections like: Reich UFOs, Rumours, Traces of the Gods, Alchemy, Immortality, Darkness Comes, Nuclear Bombs in the Kitchen, etc.?
And do you realise that you, while challenging the underlying cosmological scientific hypothesis, give as evidence a link to an article from the "Mystery Book: UFOs" website with sections like: Reich UFOs, Rumours, Traces of the Gods, Alchemy, Immortality, Darkness Comes, Nuclear Bombs in the Kitchen, etc?
Who cares. It wasn't this site that discovered this "cloning" effect of the quasar in 1979. The fact remains. Well, you can read it here or here.
Who cares. It wasn't this site that discovered this "cloning" effect of the quasar in 1979. The fact remains. Well, you can read it here or here.
Yes, but neither of THIS two sources say that this fact calls into question or contradicts the Big Bang Theory.
Yes, but neither of THESE two sources says that this fact calls into question the Big Bang Theory.
Neither does it say that in the first source that confused you. The Big Bang Theory stands on the fact that as the distance to the observed galaxies increases, the redshift of the light they emit increases. Explaining this fact by the Doppler effect, i.e. the further away a galaxy is from us, the faster it escapes from us. I only said that this effect will also occur when the 4 dimensions, which physicists call the space-time continuum, are curved (or rather "spherical"), even if the galaxy is static and not moving away from us. And this, at the very least, casts doubt on the validity of the hypothesis of an expanding Universe and, as a consequence, the Big Bang theory. Finding of 1979 confirms the fact of redshift of the same quasar, but with different light path length, i.e. the more the path curvature, the more redshift. Which is really the case, the further away a galaxy is, the greater the ratio of the path length of light to the shortest distance to it. And this is no longer my own imagination. Einstein talked about it too. I'm just trying to think logically. If my reasoning is illogical, point out my illogic.