41–50 of 60 posts
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...
It seems like these would be more prevalent, at least partial "rings". With how large space is, I'd assume there has to be something SUPER bright behind tons SUPER massive objects/clusters/whatever. I guess we just aren't always lined up with them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the concept of 'warped' space itself indicates that the intuitive, euclidean concept is correct, the light does in fact not travel in a straight line, it follows a 'warped' 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 art…
I don't think that's quite right. You can theoretically detect the local curvature of space by measuring the angles made by a sufficiently exact triangle. If space is flat, such a triangle will have interior angles that sum to a half turn. If it's curved, it will deviate from that. And that's something you can do more or less entirely locally and is a property of the space you're inhabiting. We can know the Earth is…
They're quite neat, but haven't we had pictures of these for quite a while? Is there something new about this one, or is it ("just") an article reminding people that cool stuff still exists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the concept of 'warped' space itself indicates that the intuitive, euclidean concept is correct, the light does in fact not travel in a straight line, it follows a 'warped' 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 art…
I don't think that's quite right. You can theoretically detect the local curvature of space by measuring the angles made by a sufficiently exact triangle. If space is flat, such a triangle will have interior angles that sum to a half turn. If it's curved, it will deviate from that. And that's something you can do more or less entirely locally and is a property of the space you're inhabiting. We can know the Earth is…
The real space is useless for most intents and purposes (since our interactions are bounded by the properties of light and gravity, and thus appearances is what guides us).
It seems important to make the conceptual distinction however, and not confuse reality with appearances, in this case as well as every other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Real" vs "apparent" simply follows from what we can infer from the picture, i.e. the galaxies appear to be several because of the light-warping effect of gravity, in real ity they are not. Further, I don't think space (or time for that matter) are comparable to the notion of ice, but let's keep it simple for now :-)
How about this: we live in a rare oasis in the Universe where the things are more or less 'stable', and due to this, we can form more or less consistent concepts (not 100% consistent, but enough for most practical purposes). Beyond this oasis - who knows, maybe the notions of space and time themselves become fuzzy (not unlike ice, by the way - though you objected to comparison). And this view is not that far-fetched…
To clarify, it seems to me probable that real space itself (and time for that matter) is/are exempt from such localized notions. They probably 'permeate' or 'contain' everything, have always done and will always do, regardless of location and scale. It is obviously possible that they may lose relevance at a certain scale, but that scale is nowhere near our current horizon AFAICT.
Does this mean time travel is possible ?
why none of these articles mention non-desarguian geometry?
Enlighten us with what that means and perhaps we'll be able to tell you why its not in the article...
https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Desargues_assum...
When light is bent while passing by a huge mass, this axiom fails so does the geometry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So, here's an example. Suppose you're in a toroidal space. It's an Asteroids world: you're in a cube, and if you pass through one wall you find yourself passing back into the cube from the opposite one. If you look in the right place, you will see the back of your head- several times! So there's an illusion of seeing yourself in several places at one time. But toroidal space really is different from normal space (eve…
So, an apparent illusion of disagreement seems to have occurred ;-)