21–30 of 60 posts
Does this mean time travel is possible ?
No, not at all. Why would you think that?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/time-travel-possib...
Quite OT, but these phenomena always reminds me of how wrong (popular understanding of) Einstein actually is. Whereas gravity according to that understanding warps the fabric of space itself, these pictures prove that gravity actually only appears to warp space. I.e. our intuitive, euclidean concept of space is actually the most correct, albeit an abstract, inferred phenomenon.
Quite OT, but these phenomena always reminds me of how wrong (popular understanding of) Einstein actually is. Whereas gravity according to that understanding warps the fabric of space itself, these pictures prove that gravity actually only appears to warp space. I.e. our intuitive, euclidean concept of space is actually the most correct, albeit an abstract, inferred phenomenon.
Quite OT, but these phenomena always reminds me of how wrong (popular understanding of) Einstein actually is. Whereas gravity according to that understanding warps the fabric of space itself, these pictures prove that gravity actually only appears to warp space. I.e. our intuitive, euclidean concept of space is actually the most correct, albeit an abstract, inferred phenomenon.
I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion, as these pictures show the complete opposite to me. In a vacuum, light takes the shortest distance between two points. That light is bent by gravity shows that gravity is changing what it means to be the "shortest distance". That is, space itself is being warped by the presence of mass.
The key word is "seem", which means that the light-bending characteristic of gravity make space seem like something it is not. Hope this helps.
Quite OT, but these phenomena always reminds me of how wrong (popular understanding of) Einstein actually is. Whereas gravity according to that understanding warps the fabric of space itself, these pictures prove that gravity actually only appears to warp space. I.e. our intuitive, euclidean concept of space is actually the most correct, albeit an abstract, inferred phenomenon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion, as these pictures show the complete opposite to me. In a vacuum, light takes the shortest distance between two points. That light is bent by gravity shows that gravity is changing what it means to be the "shortest distance". That is, space itself is being warped by the presence of mass.
Sure, maybe this explains better: The picture shows how light from a galaxy or galaxies from behind the galaxy cluster SDSS J0146-0929 are bent around it. It makes it "seem as though the galaxy is in several places at once". The key word is "seem", which means that the light-bending characteristic of gravity make space seem like something it is not. Hope this helps.
Quite OT, but these phenomena always reminds me of how wrong (popular understanding of) Einstein actually is. Whereas gravity according to that understanding warps the fabric of space itself, these pictures prove that gravity actually only appears to warp space. I.e. our intuitive, euclidean concept of space is actually the most correct, albeit an abstract, inferred phenomenon.
What made you come to this conclusion?
Quite OT, but these phenomena always reminds me of how wrong (popular understanding of) Einstein actually is. Whereas gravity according to that understanding warps the fabric of space itself, these pictures prove that gravity actually only appears to warp space. I.e. our intuitive, euclidean concept of space is actually the most correct, albeit an abstract, inferred phenomenon.
No, this phenomenon actually proves that space really is warped, otherwise you wouldn't see the light from behind a galaxy cluster because light follows a straight line.
The difference between the two is that the 'warped' space is what we observe (because observing is an electromagnetic process, subject to gravity), 'real' space is something we can only infer (or observe in photos like in the linked article)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not clickbait - the article says we know about less than 12 Einstein rings. So finding 1 occurence of something we've only seen 12 of seems significant.
Hmm... I could've sworn I've seen that exact photo several times before. But NASA does seem to claim it's new. Or at least the nasa.gov page was edited recently...