SN Refsdale

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Trippy, Mar 7, 2015.

  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Pl do a simple exercise...that will take you away from copy paste


    Draw a circle (or even some irregular shape) on a piece of paper, assume this to be the lensing object (Huge Galaxy / Cluster). On one side of it draw an object (SuperNova) at some arbitrary distance and likewise on the other side at any arbitrary length put an observer (Earth). Now since the object is a high Energy Supernova, so there will be substantial light at various points around intervening Galaxy, so mathematically keeping in view the warping of spacetime due to mass of lensing object a point and hence a geodesic path can be identified which will focus this light from Supernova to observer (Earth).....So should we not see many lensing examples ?? In this thread issue, the back calculations were done for 1995 and forward calculations done for 2015-20.

    The difficulty is that we must know about the background object, if there is any high energy background object, behind a cluster, then chances are very high (almost certain) that we would get the lensed image. Now in the universe there is no dearth of such combinations (High Energy Objects behind a massive cluster/Galaxy) and hence we should see lenses more often and who knows many visible images are probably lensed images.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2015
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    My decision to copy and past reputable articles will continue when and if I see fit. You have been informed of that before. Whether its from reputable professional replies from expert professors, or reputable articles from a book, or reputable articles from any learning institution on the net, it is invaluable, and you really need to boost your own knowledge about many things by researching more of the net....rather than of course trusting in your own manufactured stories on what you think may or may not happen.



    No thanks....I'll go straight to the professionals if you don't mind.
    here it is again in case you missed it........
    http://www.iflscience.com/space/gravitational-lens-allows-us-witness-supernova-repeat
    "However, in 1964 Sjur Refsdal pointed out that different images of the same supernova would capture different moments in the explosion's evolution, and might be used to test the rate at which the universe is expanding. Great efforts have been made to find such an example of such a valuable case."


    "Co-author Dr Brad Tucker of the Australian National University says, “It’s perfectly set up, you couldn’t have designed a better experiment. You can test some of the biggest questions about Einstein’s theory of relativity all at once - it kills three birds with one stone.”

    The 20-30 times magnification provided by the intervening galaxy provides a rare opportunity to such a distant supernova. Since SN Refsdale is a Type 1a supernova it provides a particularly valuable “standard candle” we can use to measure the expansion of the universe in a previously inaccessible era".

    You see how much more can be learnt by accessing reputable links that all reasonable people who want the facts do...In fact even those that have the facts and just need to reinforce them. No difficulties at all.
    Here's hoping you appreciate my continued reputable links.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    S/N type 1a are generally relatively "short lived" perhaps only a matter of weeks.
    I presume along with you that that area of the sky is still being watched.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Not at all according to our experts. This type has been searched for for 50 years.
    I'm sure also that they can differentiate between actual images and lensed image.
    I'll see what I can find to confirm.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Here we are!
    http://astronomyonline.org/Cosmology/GravitationalLensing.asp
    extract:
    The above image demonstrates what an invisible mass would do if placed between us and the Mona Lisa. The point source is tiny with a mass of the planet Saturn. Notice the obvious circular effect of the lens – the radius. Also notice the tiny nose and the small arc of the mouth within the radius. The overall image is also bloated – spread out as a result of the lensing. This is a typical effect of the gravity lens.
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    It then gives examples and indications of Strong Lensing, Weak Lensing, and Microlensing.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Worth a repeat......
    The final lines in the second Trippy link.......
    "The Stars keep lighting candles for him". [Einstein]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well said. He would be 136 years old this Saturday the 14th.
     
  10. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Paddo, Again the same old annoying non sense, you have started cluttering this thread with links and copy-paste which does not take you beyond the realms of incredulity !!

    You are not here to self pat yourself by becoming a resident link supplier, are you ? At least bring some quality in the post, most of the time these bold copy paste puts off people immediately...some one also told you not to write the thread title in caps....You are a veteran of 8500+posts....you must be knowing about what is pleasing to read and what is not...no one likes a copy paste stuff...people like well reasoned argument....that argument can be supported by citation.....now try to respond about the point I raised, in your language of course.
     
  11. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    Yes, they are short-lived; on the order of days/weeks. And the brightening of one of the four images would be on the order of a few minutes/hours due to a different transit route adding/subtracting the arrival time. We will learn some from that.

    But we will learn far more once the other image of that galaxy starts showing the supernova. That is why I believe that that expected future event will be far more 'eventful' than discovering the set-up. The fact of lensing was discovered quite a while back, and thus far, this is simply more evidence of lensing, and the potential to learn a little about the lensing effect for that one galaxy showing four images of the supernova. The major discovery will be when we see the supernova repeat in a few days/weeks/years. Keep tuned. I'm also of the impression that that supernova is too distant to detect neutrinos, as in closer supernovae. Correct me if you think that is in error.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You mean as distinct from your own made up fairy tale, unsupported, layman style take on cosmology in general.
    I'll stick to my opinions, supported by my reputable links, which obviously trumps your own fairy tale versions.
    I certainly agree with your well reasoned argument remark, it's just a pity that your own unsupported nonsense does not fit that category.
    Wheras all my well reasoned arguments are supported by reputable links and authoritive expert E-Mails.
    The rest of your post is just your usual childish spitting the dummy desperation antics, which is quite boring as well as being childishly amateurish.
    You must learn as an adult [apparently] that your made up layman's opinion in post 21 has been refuted, along with near all other claims you have made here on this forum, by myself firstly, and secondly, ably supported by all my links, E-Mails and other references.
    That will most certainly continue while you post your unevidenced nonsense, that is not accepted by mainstream cosmology.
    Live with it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2015
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Of course.
    Agreed again, but this is what I and Trippy have been saying.
    This isn't some common occurrence event as claimed by Hans Christain Anderson [Rajesh] It is a rather rare finding that we are and will still learn a lot from.
     
  14. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Rajesh, personal conflict is never pleasing to read in a science thread, especially when the post contains no reference to the discussion or science in general.
     
  15. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    True, I should have included that.

    But look, how an opportunity to discuss this interesting subject is being bulldozed by this poster... I have not understood him, what does he want ? A good participation on this issue would have included simplified metric equations, deviation angles etc, but he has just declared that the point raised by me is already refuted without any further discussions...refuted by what ? He just does not want to grow beyond superficial..
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No that's just a cop out on your part.
    You virtually claim this is common and not unusual.
    I have given you expert opinion to support my opinion, that it is far less then common and reasonably rare.
    You want to "bulldoze" my opinion that this amazing rare event, supported by expert authoritive opinion, is not rare and amazing...its as simple as that.
    here it is again........
    http://www.iflscience.com/space/gravitational-lens-allows-us-witness-supernova-repeat
    "However, in 1964 Sjur Refsdal pointed out that different images of the same supernova would capture different moments in the explosion's evolution, and might be used to test the rate at which the universe is expanding. Great efforts have been made to find such an example of such a valuable case."

    "Co-author Dr Brad Tucker of the Australian National University says, “It’s perfectly set up, you couldn’t have designed a better experiment. You can test some of the biggest questions about Einstein’s theory of relativity all at once - it kills three birds with one stone.”

    The 20-30 times magnification provided by the intervening galaxy provides a rare opportunity to such a distant supernova. Since SN Refsdale is a Type 1a supernova it provides a particularly valuable “standard candle” we can use to measure the expansion of the universe in a previously inaccessible era".
     
  17. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Paddoboy, unless and until you understand the maths behind GL, you will not be able to appreciate the point raised by me....you can stay blissful ignorant, which you are !!

    Good that you know about Hans Christian Anderson, but it further clears that you only like fairy tales, not the factual science.
     
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    .................around any asymmetrical lensing object can we not find a point (or a path) which will focus on the Earth (Observer), suggesting that we should see many more lenses as a matter of routine especially of background High Energy Objects. The sky beyond MilkyWay should contain substantial numbers of lensed images..........

    It is not at all linked with SN Refsdale, it is a general observation, anyone interested should refer to the maths behind Gravitational Lensing, and see for himself/herself.

    Paddo, only has to rush and give his expert copy paste opinion on a subject which he does not understand beyond visuals...maths of course is not his mug of beer, Paddo it is not differential geometry in true sense, but no less easier, so stay away please or learn.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    The experts involved also understand the maths, and they come to a conclusion far different from yours.
    Which obviously means you are wrong, being a rank lay person with 12 months perusal of current cosmology.
    Nothing wrong in thinking and working it all out for yourself Rajesh, as long as you come to the correct conclusions. And when those conclusions are driven by some agenda, they will be askew somewhat.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Sure but with type 1a S/N as the article covers, a rare event.
    Sure maths comes into it, but the maths also say the gravitational lensing as per the article is a reasonably rare lucky event to capture.
    If you deny that you are wrong.
    Not all gravitational lensing are quasars...not all are S/N....even less are type 1a S/N......
    Sure my maths is poor, and as a rank ameteur yourself, and what you have shown in a number of threads, your own basic knowledge of cosmology is even poorer.
    My knowledge has so far been spot on in all these anti "accepted cosmology" rants of yours, in this and other threads, and they have all been supported and verified by many expert opinions. And as a lay person, I will continue when I see it necessary, to validate my knowledge with that of professional experts and links.
    That will continue.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Why would I bulldoze this subject. I have made comments that this discovery is a rare, amazing and ground breaking wonderful event.
    You refute that.
    I inform you you are wrong, and supply evidence supporting my claim.
    You seem to be the one [as usual] that has taken offence to mine, Trippy and presumably three others who like the article, saying it is amazing [or words to that effect]

    I'm not sure how desperate you are getting Rajesh, but again, while I give my reasonably knowledgable opinion on aspects of cosmology, I will always support that with professional links and references.
    Then you stand and shout and whinge and whine, that I and the forum should be listening to you! Why for fuck's sake?
    You are also a lay person in cosmology. You appear to push an alternative position as apparent in other threads.....Your early threads were rather crtical [although asking questions] of cosmology and the answers you were given.
    You need to step back and rethink your position in all of this.
     
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Paddoboy,

    It is pure maths and not at all a direct comment on Refsdale or any other source object. It is difficult but not impossible to learn...you can look at it qualitatively sans advanced maths....just for time being pl keep the links away, and see for yourself.....

    1. Geodesic is a path that light follows. Geodesic is present everywhere in the space, only condition is that it should minimise the path between 2 points.......if you agree to this then jump to point # 2.

    2. Around any object, there will be distortion in spacetime (thats Gravity), that means depending on the mass/symmetry of the object, the Geodesic path will get distorted, and a new path will get created...But again the path will be present everywhere in the vicinity of the object......if you agree to this then please jump to point # 3.

    3. Now consider a High Energy Source object (why High Energy ?? we are talking about lights to come to us after travelling for millions of years, so the use of word High Energy Source...no dispute ?).

    4. If this High Energy Object is behind a cluster / Galaxy then the light from it will appear lensed, if at all that light gets focussed on an observer on Earth. (Thats GL roughly), if you agree then jump to Pt#5.

    5. Now by definition, Geodesic (original or distorted due to presence of lensing object) is present all around the spacetime of object.....and source emission is powerful enough that the lights would travel to almost all the points around this distorted omnipresent spacetime around the object....if you agree then Pl jump to Pt#6.

    6. Now of course it is safe to assume that we may have many such combinations where between Earth and the high Energy Source some massive Galaxy Cluster is present......(this is the assumption, but appears quite fair keeping in view that we have billions of galaxies).

    7. Now Mr. Barry, simple high school geometry of triangle will at least make it appear that there could be a point (and hence Geodesic) around this cluster, which can potentially focus the background source light to Earth ??

    In fact whats wrong in my assertion that almost all such configuration (High Energy Background source + intervening Massive Galaxy or Cluster + Earth in an almost co linear or slight angled arrangement) will give rise to Lensing ?? If such combinations as per presumption in Sr # 6 are present then we should observe many more lenses, should we not ?? I do not have the answer as of now, this is not anti mainstream, so do not give any color to this point. Now please tell me how do I step back or what do I rethink, I will do that to get the answer.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Rajesh, let me tell you one up.
    We had a former poster here called undefined....he has been banned now a real anti science fool he was.
    He also took the school teacher approach that you like to present for some credibility and respect. He too had desperate times and started with threats, accusations etc, and needless to say he to finally came undone.
    What I'm trying to say is [1] you are not a professional cosmologist. [2] You have at best only a rudimentary knowledge of standard accepted cosmology going on past efforts in other threads.[3]You are not quite smart enough to sit there and formulate your own cosmological scenarios without any reputable support.[4] You are not quite smart enough to railroad me into bowing before your pretentious general nonsensical claims over many threads.
     

Share This Page