Is there any evidence that the great attractor isn't just gravitationally lensed gravity? It seems odd that it would be directly on the other side of the black hole at the center of our galaxy and not just be a distortion of what we see while every time we find a way to look a little further in that direction we find something apparently bigger.
Asked
Active
Viewed 90 times
0
-
There is no such thing as gravitationally lensed gravity. – Stéphane Rollandin Feb 28 '18 at 08:54
-
@StéphaneRollandin https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170410/do-gravitational-lenses-work-on-gravitational-waves – CoryG Mar 01 '18 at 17:22
-
Equating gravitional waves and gravity does not work. You are looking for an attractor, not for infinitesimal fluctuations of the metric. – Stéphane Rollandin Mar 01 '18 at 17:30
-
@StéphaneRollandin something made of gravity is gravity. – CoryG Mar 01 '18 at 17:54
-
This depends on the context. In the context of your question, no, obviously. Gravitational waves are not in any way responsible for the motion of galaxies, they can't even move an atom in a noticeable way, so there is no way they can behave as the great attractor, lensed or not. Doing physics is not playing with words. Without an understanding of orders of magnitudes and domains of validity, you only get sloppy thinking. – Stéphane Rollandin Mar 01 '18 at 19:02
-
@StéphaneRollandin Are you joking? I used gravitational waves (e.g., made of gravity) as things which are influenced themselves by gravity, ergo gravity influences gravity. This isn't even a debatable point. I never suggested that gravity waves were responsible for the motions of galaxies or anything remotely close to that. The question revolves more around the idea that the pull of our black hole could over the distances involved skew the light coming at us from distant bodies to make them appear as though they are going in that direction. – CoryG Mar 01 '18 at 19:14