Assumptions in science 12) Lensing in deep space is gravitational?

Lensing in space is optical, in the corona of stars a little but it the plasma environments of galaxies.... ALOT! In other word it is quite patently obvious that the cause is refraction. This is what ALWAYS causes lensing. The liklihood gravity is causing this phenomenon is remote to day the least and it completely ignores well established basics of optics and selectively ignores the basic laws of physics in instances that are not suitable.

 

This is clear, not a controversial view and such a statement can be easily shown to be true. Its only with cosmology that entire other laws of physics are built apon theoretical laws of physics. Ironic that the refraction lense of a telescope first put an end to the endless speculation of epicycles in the earth centered centered model of the solar system with Copernicus and Galileo.  

 

I find it beyond ironic that not so long ago we first started hypothesizing that lensing in the cosmos would be presupposed to be gravitational in nature. We were, after all (before radio telescopes), peering into the sky with two kinds of telescopes. Reflecting telescopes and REFRACTING telescopes

.

 

The interstellar and intergalactic medium is apparently very empty when thought of as matter subject to mutual gravitational attraction. However its not empty when (in absence of competing forces) considered in terms of being subject to weak electromagnetic forces per unit area that turn out relatively powerful vs gravitation from matter densities at magnitudes above our solar system. The medium consists almost entirely of plasma that is at minimum 1% ionised, usually much much more. That is to say in the vast emptiness, wherever there are small concentrations of matter, its that matter which consists of mostly ionised plasma (99.99% of the universe), principally hydrogen but also helium and (although much smaller by compisition) a variety of other gases.

 

These are not inert noble gases, they are ionised to some or other extent by the harsh radiation, cosmic rays and generally ionisation inducing conditions in deep space. This has a consequence because any charge movement generates a magnetic field that in the microgravity of space forms a self contained plasma magnetic entity. It's worth repeating: The morphology of these plasmas is well known to be organised, ie they are self contained by virtue of their own magnetic fields. This is an inescapable consequence of their ionization which by definition facilitates the movement of charge. It may as well be said.

 

Moving charge goes by another term: Electric current.

 

 

Electric current produces magnetic fields, and these fields are proven in laboratories, fission reactors, tokomacs and fusion research facilities to produce plasma formations such as pinches from instabilities, twin helix "magnetic flux ropes" (known as Birkeland Currents in plasma cosmology). They also produce double layers, plasmoids and counter rotating spheres.

The magnetic fields are now discovered wherever we look in the cosmos by interpreting polarised light. The other consequence is the extensive cosmic filaments now known to connect all galaxies as the IGW (or Intergalactic Web) and to scale right up to the largest structure so far discernible which is known as the "Cosmic Web"

Gravity does not form filaments. It forms spheres. It does not form rotational structures either unless an unlikely contrived angular momentum figure is precisely and fortuitously present inherent to matter in these systems. This is so unlikely it strains credulity.

Another consequence that isnt mentioned much is that the plasma is organised into discrete and well defined areas of different density and composition. The composition of the gasses ionised in the plasma further impacts on the density creating zones of significant difference in density in a process called Markland Convection.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to pass from a region of one density to another without experiencing refraction. In other words there HAS TO BE lensing that is optical in nature happening all over the universe. And there is. We know its optical since there is a prisming of light into its spectrum in all lensing observed to date. How interesting since gravitationally lensed light was predicted to lens light evenly accross the spectrum, and this has not been observed at the time of my writing this.

Even more interestingly, no lensing is routinely observed around supposed supermassive objects on a regular basis. Sagittarius A is a good example. Now, I thought (that for the hypothesis of lensing being caused by gravity to be upheld) it means it should always be observed that gravity will consistently affect light accordingly when those conditions of strong enough gravitation are observed. That is how science works. Violate the rule once and its called falsification.

But the consequences are more severe. As put forward, gravitational lensing should be found everywhere, in varying degrees commensurate with the strength of gravitational fields of massive objects. If gravity does not ALWAYS cause lensing (in gravitational fields of suitable strength) then straightaway the hypothesis of lensing being gravitational in cause is falsafied. As it stands the objects with the highest gravitational fields have no relationship directly proportional to the lensing discovered which is as arbitrary as it is isolated. Differences in plasma densities cannot be accurately ascertained since most of exists in what is known as "dark mode" (when current flow and density is too weak or dispersed to luminate or warm the plasma to "glow" or "arc" mode). It would be invisable, and as such the cases of lensing would be expected to mostly show up unpredicted in seemingly arbitrary and isolated cases.

Sagittarius A, no gravitational lensing for 14 years under close scrutiny.

Optical lensing on the other hand would only happen when conditions call for it. The inconsistencies we observe would not just be explainable, they would be required and predicted. This unforgivable oversight should demand immediate scrutiny.

Lensing and the CMB.

Richard Lieu and Jonathan Mittaz,[ii] physicists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, were unable to locate gravitational lensing in the CMB. This is where one would expect to find it as it is supposedly the most distant light source in the Cosmos according to BBT. They concluded that isothermal sphere profiles and the NFW were not accurate descriptions of clusters, unless important elements of physics, responsible for shaping zero-curvature space, are absent in the standard cosmological model.[iii] They state: “When all the effects are accrued, it is difficult to understand how WMAP could reveal no evidence whatsoever of lensing by groups and clusters.”[iv]

... read more HERE

Or find more about problems with the conclusions drawn about the CMB in general my earlier post HERE

So really there is no evidence to speak of which shows us that any lensing observed so far is gravitational.

That assumption ignores well established principles of plasma physics and to conclude as much could be described (in the most conservative way) as "hasty"

I would describe it in a less conservative way.....

For the Homepage of this site click HERE