Register to reply

Pictures from Space

by b_dobro
Tags: pictures, space
Share this thread:
b_dobro
#1
Jul16-08, 07:03 PM
P: 9
Real pictures from Space?


Most people have seen pictures the Hubble space telescope has taken of deep space. These objects are so far away that in fact the light we are seeing has traveled many light years before even being detected. But what could happen to light over these unimaginably long periods of time? What about the space and time in between; can it be warped, blocked? What if our observations of unexplained missing mass turn out to be the effect of something much like erosion on a scale of light years? Should we really jump to such conclusions as to say that matter exists even in places it is untraceable?

Dark matter is a term used for an unexplained missing amount of matter that necessarily must be there to fulfill the laws of gravity. Common ex; a galaxy that necessarily needs to have more mass than is detected in order to explain for its' shape. Could this dark matter, and its' sister dark energy just be an illusion?

Does light travel through all objects? Not always, it's sometimes filtered, or blocked like in a solar eclipse. Considering the size these pictures are representing you'd say that any changes would be minor. Like losing almost infinitely small fractions to an asteroid, or maybe then to a tiny spec of space dust. I'd agree if we were talking about what we can see with our own eyes but we're talking about millions of light years of distance. Those tiny space dust specs will account for something in the long run. Or what about seeing something like 2 galaxies crashing into each other? What if it was 2 galaxies superimposed? The first one's light let's say is an 8000 year focal point in respect to the telescope, and the second one is a 2000 year focal point, but we took the picture 30,000 years after the fact? If there is no relative speed to light, how could you detect any distance between them?

Which brings me to my original question: How do we know the light waves we observe are authentic? What if it has been refracted in some way, or blocked by small particles of matter in the right place at the right time? Or something behind it? And everyone knows the effects of gravity on light have been proven, then what could even the smallest pull of gravity do to a wave of light traveling across a massive universe? Could the proximity of our galaxies and their arrangements in space stretch these pictures in such a way that creates an illusion of variating gravity? Can the particles of light work on each other through their own gravity forces or perhaps cancel out, considering the vast amount of time they have traveled together? Or consider this, if light can be bent, then from someone's perspective it would appear to be slowing down. If that's not the case (which i'm honestly not sure about) then from one perspective it would appear as a dot, and from another perspective it would appear as a line.

You would argue that we are looking at the old light, from it's actual energy source. I would argue that that is impossible. In order for that to be true, you would need to be observing the mass/energy in it's smallest possible form, any other volume has a time where the waves could have been altered through travel. If you research some information on quantum physics, you'll see just how counter-intuitive the results are of experiments done at the smallest levels of mass/energy. When looking at something that has a size of a hundred light years across, necessarily the space in front we are looking at is also a hundred light years in depth, since we see in three dimensions. So what about all that space in between the focal point and the actual source of the energy waves? What about any light behind it that could have been younger but has managed to "catch up" because of our point of view in time?
By looking at something after the fact, then couldn't we be observing it in four dimensions? Maybe we are seeing left, right, front and back all at the same time artificially created by our point of view. To know the true composition and location of matter of a galaxy, we would need an infinite amount of picture slices starting with the closest piece of matter, and ending with the farthest. Only then could you claim to see its' real shape. Until that day, the data picked up by a telescope of something light years away could be deceiving.

Hmm....maybe twenty-first century astronomy is a stillborn. Maybe we are looking at pictures from a faulty perspective: the human perspective. Modern science always seemed to be moving towards a unification theory, one Albert Einstein believed in even until his death. We may be looking at the big picture, but I think we're unable to see the biggest one.


I'm completely open to the assault of this posting and also admit that I am not a scientist, nor am I a religious person. Many of the things I have said could be very wrong as it is not scientifically based, but simply a logical extrapolation of information found on the internet through such sites as:

Wikipedia.com
Surfthechannel.com
Google.com
Youtube.com

....not the greatest references. Maybe I'm seeing this completely wrong, I'd like to hear it.
Phys.Org News Partner Astronomy news on Phys.org
Despite extensive analysis, Fermi bubbles defy explanation
Companion planets can increase old worlds' chance at life
Hubble shows farthest lensing galaxy yields clues to early universe
DaveC426913
#2
Jul16-08, 09:24 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
The long and the short of it is that every principle of astrophysics has been applied to the issue and we are still left an anomaly. We've thought of cold matter and dust clouds and all those things and ruled them out. We've ruled out everything we know about.

Which means the only thing left is something we don't know about. Which means we are looking at some here-to-for unknown principles of physics. Which means it's really just a matter of what flavour this new physics has. Is dark matter any more or less plausible than any other flavour new here-to-for unknown physics?

Wikipedia.com
Surfthechannel.com
Google.com
Youtube.com
This part's a joke, right?

You've come to a Physics forum, where half the members have degrees and do this kind of thing for a living, and you're telling them to look on Wiki and YouTube for wisdom?
DaveC426913
#3
Jul16-08, 09:50 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
BTW, there is some direct visual evidence for Dark Matter that's pretty hard to explain as any sort of observational or other error. See what wiki has to say about the Bullet Cluster.

More here.

g33kski11z
#4
Jul23-08, 07:13 PM
P: 93
Pictures from Space

Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
..some direct visual evidence for Dark Matter ..
August 21, 2006 - Dark Matter Observed , with video ... but if you like youtube, try this.

Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
....and you're telling them to look on Wiki and YouTube for wisdom?..
I don't think b_dobro was telling anybody to look at those references for wisdom, he admitted {as do I} that he's not a scientist.

He looks for answers to questions that he has.. isn't that what we all do..? I've found some "decent" video's on youtube and such that create an interest in a particular subject.. the key is to come here and use the search function and read what people have posted. Then do the research ..

.. but as Dave said, the people here are scientists and typically {close to} experts in their respective fields.. youtube and wiki are not "sources", people here post things like this.
malawi_glenn
#5
Jul24-08, 01:59 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
malawi_glenn's Avatar
P: 4,739
"Or what about seeing something like 2 galaxies crashing into each other? What if it was 2 galaxies superimposed? The first one's light let's say is an 8000 year focal point in respect to the telescope, and the second one is a 2000 year focal point, but we took the picture 30,000 years after the fact? If there is no relative speed to light, how could you detect any distance between them?"

We measure distance to galaxies by things like red-shift and super novae 1a. Also we can measure the motion of galaxies with red shift as well.
DaveC426913
#6
Jul24-08, 08:48 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by malawi_glenn View Post
"Or what about seeing something like 2 galaxies crashing into each other? What if it was 2 galaxies superimposed? ... We measure distance to galaxies by things like red-shift and super novae 1a. Also we can measure the motion of galaxies with red shift as well.
1] We have a whole host of distance measuring methods. They corroborate each other.
2] We can tell that the galaxies are interacting by ... well ... their interaction.

The first one's light let's say is an 8000 year focal point in respect to the telescope, and the second one is a 2000 year focal point, but we took the picture 30,000 years after the fact?
This part makes no sense. After what fact? We look out into the sky and see waht we see. If we are looking 30,000ly away, we are seeing events that happened 30,000 years ago. If those galaxies collided or did not collide 30,000 years ago, that's what we would see.

Astronomy is a pretty-well established science. Grab a couple of good books and you'll find the answers to these seeming mysteries.
malawi_glenn
#7
Jul24-08, 09:30 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
malawi_glenn's Avatar
P: 4,739
DaveC426913: You should be aware that I was quoting b_dobro, then I gave him some answers. I didn't use the qoute-function, so therefore I used " "
DaveC426913
#8
Jul24-08, 09:42 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by malawi_glenn View Post
DaveC426913: You should be aware that I was quoting b_dobro, then I gave him some answers. I didn't use the qoute-function, so therefore I used " "
Oh. Sorry. Using the quote function would have made that more clear.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Pictures from Space Astronomy & Astrophysics 0
Do you take pictures? General Discussion 69
Take some pictures at school with my new camera General Discussion 68
How do you get pictures on to PF? General Discussion 3
Old pictures General Discussion 0