Gravitational Lensing or Inferior Mirage?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores whether gravitational lensing can be explained by light refraction through heat gradients, questioning the relationship between the two phenomena. It emphasizes that gravitational lensing aligns with Einstein's predictions and is distinct from optical effects like mirages. To differentiate between the two, analyzing the light's frequency is crucial, as gravitational lensing affects all frequencies uniformly, unlike refraction, which causes spectral splitting. The conversation also touches on the terminology used to describe space and its properties, clarifying misconceptions about density in a vacuum. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards gravitational lensing being a well-supported phenomenon explained by relativity.
6nqpnw
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Can gravitational lensing also be explained by the refraction of light from a more distant object through a gradient of radiant heat and dense cool space?

Same difference? Or completely separate and unrelated?

If unrelated, how can this optical phenomenon be determined as a result of light passing through curved spacetime -vs- heat distortion? (other than Einstein said so)
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I've never heard of "dense cool space". What exactly is that supposed to be?

I don't believe the phenomenon can be explained your way. Gravitational lensing behaves exactly as predicted by Einstein and Relativity.
 
I was looking for an explanation more along the lines of principles and laws, not "beliefs" and "predictions."

However, I do believe I've sorted it out. Astronomical Mirages exist as does Gravitational Lensing. And to determine which of the two is causing the distortion of a distant object, one would only need to analyze the light itself -- specifically, its frequency.

If heat / mirage were 'bending' the light, then it would be split into a spectrum since different frequencies refract by different amounts; whereas gravitational lensing acts on all frequencies evenly.

But I get your point: how can a vacuum be dense? I shouldn't have said 'dense.' Cool air is dense; space isn't air. *bonk* Just wish you would've overlooked that rather than trying to provoke an argument. Thanks anyway; maybe next time we can lock horns.
 
Wow, I think you took my post WAAY over the top lol. None of that was argumentative, but simply saying that I think relativity explains it perfectly. That isn't "prediction and beliefs" as you stated, but is in fact principles and laws that have been proven by evidence.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top