The cosmic conspiracy.

well good, since they aren't your scientists you should have no problem admitting they were totally wrong about the composition of Temple 1, and by association, every other comet they describe.So if all their data before impact pointed to a loose aggregates of material, and they have positively ruled out any theories that rely on such, then all the data that claimed Temple 1 and Haley and every other comet was a loose aggregate of material is also highly suspect.You should look in the morror when you call others liers, since you do it every post in an effort to defend a theory that has been disproved. That's the sad part, that somehow you feel the need to lie in an attempt to defend a theory all the leading comet scientists say is incorrect.Why is that? Why attempt to defend a theory no one agrees is correct anymore? Not even NASA believes they are dirty snowballs any more. It seems that you are the only one that believes this disproved theory. Wake up, the future is here and is passing you by.You are letting your anger get in the way of reasonable thinking because you're upset that you were proved wrong. I understand. That's the typical response from 8 year olds, but I was expecting more from adults who claim to understand science. You are a fool and I will waste no more time on you.If anyone else wants to have a reasonable discussion we can, but fools and idiots will no longer be replied to.

Last time I'll answer since you continue to ignore the factsGravitational lens - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Unlike an optical lens, maximum 'bending' occurs closest to, and minimum 'bending' furthest from, the center of a gravitational lens. Consequently, a gravitational lens has no single focal point, but a focal line instead. If the (light) source, the massive lensing object, and the observer lie in a straight line, the original light source will appear as a ring around the massive lensing object.

---

it will appear as a ring in relativity theory.They are not rings, or even multiple images of one object, they all have filaments connecting to the CENTER of the galaxy they are interacting with. And as the quasar's increase distance from it's host galaxy over time, the filaments thin and the quasars become brighter as they begin to form into galaxies of their own.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...e/astro/eincros.html
Your own photo's disprove everything you've ever said which is nothing by the way, except to claim everyone else is wrong, haven't seen you present one fact yet. All you have ever done is say others are wrong without saying how. Because you have no how. Funniest looking ring I ever seen, pointing inwards like an X not circular like an O. At least get an explanation consistent with the observations, not in direct contradiction to what we see.
Oh, but that's right, we didn't have the technology then that we do now, couldn't see those connection like we can now, so you could get away with that explanation before, but our own technology is catching you up now.Here's another quasar not connected to it's parent galaxy according to mainstream.
http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htmEdited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

I agree completely, you will see arc segments or multiples thereof. The post just agrees with meArc segments, third picture down, see em?
What is Gravitational Lensing? | CFHTLenSArc segments, see em?
New method of detecting dark energy discovered - Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community ForumArc segments, see em?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...e/astro/eincros.htmlYou've applied the theory where it is evident it does not apply. Because your entire red shift = distance theory is a house of cards in the process of being blown over.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Or distorted multiple images of the object. Did you miss that yet again?

---

No but you did, since they must be distorted in a ring, what part of that do you not understand????? Any distortion must be in the planar ring around the source, not towards it. Einstein's theory leaves no other interpretation.Redshift, claimed to be due to Hubble’s theory, but we find it isn’t:
Georges Lematre - WikipediaHubble himself stated many times: It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination We may predict with confidence that the 200-inch will tell us whether the red-shifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new principle of nature. (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. 59, No. 349).And lo and behold, the 200-inch telescope did indeed tell us whether the red-shifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new principle of nature. Halton Arp found quasars in connection with their parent galaxies. But you ignored Hubble and his assistant Halton Arp.Halton Arp was the lone voice among a crowd of scientists who conformed to the standard Big Bang model when he began to publish papers that did not demonstrate that inflationor the Big Bang hypothesiswas valid. As Edwin Hubble predicted, Arp’s research using the 200-inch Hale reflector demonstrated some new principle of nature. For daring to question he was denied access to any telescope in the US, this is how science treats those who might question the proposed model.And now with the Hubble Space Telescope we not only see the bridge linking the two clearly, but also observe two other quasars’ embedded inside this filament. That one might be chance alignment but that 4 are is astronomically impossible.
http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htmhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466Plasma redshift has been observed in the laboratory, a newly discovered principle of nature just as Hubble predicted and Halton Arp verified.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420The cards are quickly blowing away in the wind.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Perhaps you overestimate the power of wind.

---

Perhaps you underestimate it. So much evidence you presented there in refutation, I am at a loss to respond.
See message 129.

quote:

---

1. Strong lensing: where there are easily visible distortions such as the formation of Einstein rings, arcs, and multiple images.

---

No rings or arcs in the image, can't be that.

quote:

---

2. Weak lensing: where the distortions of background sources are much smaller and can only be detected by analyzing large numbers of sources to find coherent distortions of only a few percent. The lensing shows up statistically as a preferred stretching of the background objects perpendicular to the direction to the center of the lens.

---

Perpundicular, do you know what that means?Perpendicular - WikipediaSo it shows up as a small distortion in direction exactly perpindicular to the center, at right angles to it not in alignment with the center.Your own quote shows how silly is your reliance on such to describe this event.

quote:

---

3. Microlensing: where no distortion in shape can be seen but the amount of light received from a background object changes in time. The lensing object may be stars in the Milky Way in one typical case, with the background source being stars in a remote galaxy, or, in another case, an even more distant quasar. The effect is small, such that (in the case of strong lensing) even a galaxy with a mass more than 100 billion times that of the Sun will produce multiple images separated by only a few arcseconds

---

Can't be that, they are seperated by more than a few arseconds and all filaments show connection to the center.So which of the above 3 are you relying on to describe Einstein's cross????? None, because none of them fit it in the least, even if you stretch the meanings.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

And yet you have 4 objects all in PERFECT alignment and clearly imbedded in the same filament.http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htmYou have pictures of quasars in front of galaxies, but you ignore that too. see NGC 7319.Hubble said the 200-inch telescope would settle the issue and it did, you just continue to ignore the evidence to defend the false redshift = distance theory that you claim is Hubble's yet Hubble argued against such theory as fitting curved spacetime.We have observed redshift in the lab with plasma, 99.99% of the universe. Wake up and get your head out of the sand. You need to let go of a theory that died over 50 years ago.It is funny how the same man that saved Chapman's theory from the rubbish heap by single handedly overuling the peer review process (it was rejected by the peer review comittee) is the same man that all by himself rejected Arp's papers before it could even get to the peer review process. And yet Chapman's theory was proved incorrect, and Birkeland proved correct. This is your idea of proper science. Ity's no wonder you still rely on theories disproved over 50 years ago. You still use Cghapman's theory to describe the near earth environs, when he was proved incorrect. And then you wonder why you are always surprised when new data comes forward. Gee, we wonder why nothing fits theory, the data must be wrong. Our eyes are decieving us, we jst can't understand how this can be.Go back a few years and reread all the news releases by NASA, count the number of times surprised is included in every single new data set that is acquired. If your theory is so correct, why are you so surprised time after time after time?The only real surprise is that you are still surprised when it occurrs every single time!When you decide to start doing real science again let me know, then we will have something to discuss.The search for gravitational waves: negative result after negative reault, yet it's not an indication of falsification.The search for dark matter: negative result after negative result, yet it's not an indication of falsification.The search for ether: 4 or 5 negative results, yet it is an indication of falsification.You don't even hold your theories up to the same scientific standards you do any that don't agree with your theories.Double-talk and obfuscation, the tools of modern science.

Your arcs are Einstein Rings, your multiple images are micro-lensing. Micro-lensing requires the images be separated by arc seconds, not 90 degrees of separation.Why are YOU attempting to twist the words of your own theory when confronted with direct observational evidence against it?Only been identified if you twist the entire theory you claim applies to it. That you NEED it to be that way against direct observation is not my fault.Just as your comet theory is totally worthless and against every direct observational and laboratory evidence.Here is what your theory says and what the facts say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iky2k8MtMno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ADWYHJpqgAnd heres some more quasars for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c9M33FLH40Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A circle having a diameter of just over 2 arc seconds will enclose all four images of the cross simultaneously just as the theory suggests.

---

My god, spare me that bull. No wonder you can't see straight, you cant add either. A circle comprises 360 degrees. an arc of one degree is but a fraction of that, and there are 60 arc seconds in a degree. Where did you learn math? The quasars are each seperated from the others by 90 degrees of seperation, not mere arc seconds. As I said, you must twist everything to even be able to attempt to explain it, and that explanation is so rediculous I got nothing to say except maybe you should learn what a degree is and go back to school.
Minute and second of arc - Wikipedia
ARCS ARE NOT MEASURED IN A STRAIGHT LINE. That's diameters and radiuses.Put the View Master down please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eojmYTbumZ8How's that Dark Matter holding up? Gonna have to redo all those
calculations again arn't you?????Explained: Why many surveys of distant galaxies miss 90% of their targets | ESOAnd let's not forget this mass either while you are at it.
New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | SpaceEdited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Observing at Skyhound: Einstein's Cross

quote:

---

The separation between A and B is less than 2"

---

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/.../402/4/2335.full.pdf+html

quote:

---

and shows nebular emission from two components separated by 0.4 arcsec (in the image plane), possibly indicating a merger. It appears that foreground interstellar material within the galaxy has been evacuated from the sightline along which we observe the starburst, giving an unextinguished view of its stars and H ii regions....Data secured with less than two hours of integration on two of the four images....Longer observations, achieving higher S/N ratios, will in future shed further light on the nature of both the massive foreground LRG and the background star-forming galaxy.

---

Ahhh, so you have kinda looked and show a possible merger, and furthermore foreground interstellar material was evacuated from the galaxy causing A clear line of sight, by ejection of those quasar's. We just found out about your belief on dust. Now it appears with 2 hours of light from a quasar how far away you confirm it as a gravitational effect, even though you admit there's a possible merger. Ahhh, one day you will all stop changing the stories. 2 hours because that's all it took to get anomalous results, so you figured you better stop and leave it for someone else to look into. I look forward to those further observations of longer light collection so we can really see what's going on!. And it's called a wide separation, because its beyond the limits of allowance, and now you find a possible merger and evacuation of dust along the sight line. But we will keep the View master on, isn't it such a pretty view!http://www.discordancyreport.com/einstein-cross/ Gravitational Lens SimulationJust seems to keep getting harder and harder to explain them without throwing Fairie Dust in doesn't it. What you gonna do when people stop using the View Master? You require a falsified entity to explain your lensing. How many Null results are we up to now, 15-20, more? Only took 4 for ether, where's those scientific standards you keep raving about??????http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312427

quote:

---

Gravitational lensing is a powerful tool for the study of the distribution of dark matter in the Universe. The cold-dark-matter model of the formation of large-scale structures predicts the existence of quasars gravitationally lensed by concentrations of dark matter so massive that the quasar images would be split by over 7 arcsec.

---

Einstein's cross is 6 arc-seconds. But we just found out that 90% of galaxies have been missed, and that they are actually twice as bright as thought, and therefore twice as massive.And let's not forget this mass.
Discovery May Triple the Number of Stars In the Universe | SpaceSo have you recalculated the amount of Dark matter needed now? Won't that cause that 76% Dark Energy to go haywire now? Ahh, that's right, we just fiddle with the numbers and now we only need 12% Dark Matter and, what, 38% Dark Energy let's say. We havn't added all the stars of the Sun's mass were shown to be missing, almost twice as much.Getting less and less dark Matter, but you keep needing more and more to explain what you believe you see. Flick the View Master, maybe the next image will fit.And BTW, what are those galaxies that are actually twice as bright and twice as massive gonna do to your distance calculations. My god, we gonna have to redo all that being it was based upon believed luminosity, and oops, let's not forget those Black Holes that are suddenly shrinking in size, since there goes half the mass of one. No need for those binary ones now, or the Massive Black Holes. Got a lot of theory to start rewriting, best get to it.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

quote:

---

Einstein's cross substantially smaller than 6" as you have already acknowledged.

---

No its not, it hovers right around 6 arcseconds, depending on who's doing the measuring. Read the article. Mainstream scientists not EU or Plasma scientists.

quote:

---

No, the amount of dark energy needed to model the observed accelerated expansion would not change if some dark matter were replaced by ordinary matter. So "let's" NOT "say" that. Do you understand the theory you are ripping on?

---

Do you? I think that really is the question.let's let the experts tell us. The theorists, in plain English for once.
Do we really need Dark Matter and Dark Energy? | Star Stryder
Same picture in infrared, just colored in your DM one
NASA - Searching for Primordial Antimatter
Don't you know magnetic fields when you see them?
File:Bullet cluster lensing.jpg - Wikipedia
And the electric currents that cause them?But of course you can measure the 1 million ampere current going thru Io yet not imagine electric surface arcing, or the 15GW source causing cathode jets on Enceladus and see geysers, so what can I expect. Pretty good View Master you got going.
Electricity is the only known cause of x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet, even radiation. There is no other known way to produce them. Atoms are controlled by the electric force.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/...llege/Materials/Structure/bonds.htm
No matter your repeated failure to find a gravitational model for them. Yet you refuse to apply that same force to space even though I believe it was "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". E=mc^2. Where there are moving bodies, there is electric current.
NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind
Sun, moon, stars and beyond with Astro Bob | Duluth News Tribune
Press Release
http://science1.nasa.gov/...cience-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis
Take the View Master off, open your eyes, see......

quote:

---

dark energy is only needed to explain why the cosmic expansion rate is larger than it would be if the Universe were made exclusively of matter.

---

If it's not made of matter, then its made of what? Dark Matter? But you need to recalculate that, so you need to recalculate the Dark Energy too. Good try though. Do we need mention you need DM to explain gravitational lensing?????
So we now have 90% more galaxies of twice the mass, plus triple the stars, so more of the universe is made of matter than your theory allows for (4%). So, twice as massive, that's up to 8%. Add a tripple the stars, say 12%, and 50% more mass from missed galaxies, another 30% for all the edge on galaxies you missed and right at 100% matter. You haven't figured out yet you can't measure voltage until you get there, because you don't have a clue as to what it is except that the light comes on when you flip a switch, but every time we do go there we detect those electric currents.
Forbidden - Stack Exchange
Voltage is relative, you must be there to measure it with respect to something nearby. And as every probe has shown, when we get there we measure the electric currents.
Of course you want them to be caused by perpetual motion dynamos in the core, even though we all know about perpetual motion machines.
Perpetual motion - Wikipedia
So the outside energy needed to drive a rotating planetary core over billions of years against friction comes from where????? Dare we say the Sun, just like those "stringy things" and "magnetic ropes" connecting Earth and Sun? No, can't be, heating of a core by magnetic induction from the huge currents we observe just couldn't be a possibility. That only works on stoves right? How silly of me to suggest such a possibility. It must indeed be a perpetual motion core spinning in the center of the planet violating all the known laws of science. That HAS to be it. Good call chap!Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, you would not need to revisit the amount of dark energy if you revised the amounts of matter and dark matter by finding more matter. Dark energy plays an entirely different role in cosmology than do either matter or dark matter. Of course I'm only about the third person to point that stuff out to you.

---

Of course we don't have to revisit it, it's only based on the observed so called fact that there exists too little visible matter in the Universe, nevermind that that amount keeps increasing exponentially every time it's checked. So since there is now more visible matter than was ever tought possible, how does the amount of Dark Energy not change, when it is solely based upon IF the universe contains less matter than now observed. Since there is more matter preventing expansion, there now must be MORE Dark Energy to explain why this sudden increase in mass is still accellerating beyond what the original amount of Dark Energy required for the mass observed then. Since it is not related to Dark Matter as claimed, and only visible matter, and the visible matter has increased, and therefore its gravitational properties has increased, there must be more to counteract all that extra mass. 2 + 2 does not equal 5. Well, in your math it might.You are caught between a rock and a hard place, and your only solution is to pretend it doesn't exist, that there is no problem. Terrible science and theory where one must ignore observations to keep the theory propped upright.Believe me, there is a form of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but when you start calling it by its proper name, then science can advance. That's plasma and electric currents. Electirc currents attract and repell, merely dependant upon the current direction and angles between objects. Electric fields are the only known cause of particle acceleration, we have never used another in any experiment ever devised. Oh sure, you can squirt stuff out of a bottle, but it does not continue to accellerate, it acquires escape speed and stays constant. Only electric fields cause particles to accellerate and continue to accellerate as long as they remain in the electric field.This is why the solar wind continues to accellerate out past the orbit of Jupiter, and then at the heliopause, comes to a complete stop. What stops it, being there is no mass in the outer solar system of enough quantity to bring it to a complete halt? Must be that dang Dark Matter again we can't seem to find anywhere, even though tests have shown none exist in our solar system. Electric fields can accellerate and decellerate particles, bring them to a standstill or deflect them.So explain to me your perpetual motion core in the center of our planet that has continued to spin against all the known laws of physics for 4 billion years? You can't even spin something in the air and have it spin for very long due to friction, but you sure don't mind having one spin for billions of years inside the Earth.I say it is YOU and mainstream astronomers that don't understand physics, being you have placed a perpetual motion core in the planet that by their own admissions is impossible without an outside energy source.Time for the View Master, click, click, click.....

No, just taking a break. But you can answer one question for me.How much evidence does mainstream need before they finally acknowledge it is not an electrically neutral environment out there?Bad request!Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual InstituteHazards of Solar Wind On Moon | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual InstituteNASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus Stll waiting for them to put down the View Master and dispose of all the Fairie Dust. But at least mainstream is *finally* starting to study it. Better late than never I guess.NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science TargetNot that it does much good when one talks of Plasma as if it was nothing but a *hot Gas.* Such is the life of uninformed astronomers that have never taken a course in Plasma Physics or Electric Field Theory and their sychophant followers that haven't a clue as to what Plasma is.NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas | NASA2) Of course they head to sheltered rooms, it is an electrically active evironment out there, theyt's why they built those shielded rooms.3) Says who? people that think space is electrically neutral? Why should I believe their calculations? You got 100,000 amps coming down at the poles every second, don't see it frying your ass when you stand at the north pole. Do you uinerstand the concept of grounded?Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual InstituteEdited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

quote:

---

They don't build any such shielded rooms, nor do astronauts and satellites take cover in these non-existent rooms. This alleged current would be running all the time. Do astronauts and satellites spend all their time in shielded rooms? Guess you've never heard of spacewalks.

---

Apparently you don't know much about space.
spacetoday.net: ISS radiation shielding not as good as hoped

quote:

---

Upgraded radiation shielding on the International Space Station is not working as well as expected, New Scientist reported Wednesday. According to the report, radiation levels within the station are about one millisievert per day, about the same amount of radiation one would get on the ground from natural sources in one year. Those levels are within a few percent of those measured on Mir despite the use of new shielding on the station designed to lower radiation levels.

---

Probably why it didn't work as expected, you understand it so little and think it is electrically neutral despite the fact that craft entering space immediately build up charge.NASA knows it exists, why don't you?
Bad request!Space Weatherhttp://srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov/SpaceRadiation/How/How.cfmNASA - A New Technique to Protect Astronauts from Space RadiationWhat a Space Suit Does - Spacesuit Capabilities | HowStuffWorks

quote:

---

Space suits offer only limited protection from radiation. Some protection is offered by the reflective coatings of Mylar that are built into the suits, but a space suit would not offer much protection from a solar flare. So, spacewalks are planned during periods of low solar activity.

---

You seem to be ignoring that 99% of the universe again, as usual.Edited by Admin, : Fix subtitle.

No, a singularity is nothing more than a pinch in the plasma current streams. What you like to call dark matter.
http://visservices.sdsc.edu/...o/images/dark_s_018000001.jpgZ-pinch - Wikipedia
Pinch (plasma physics) - WikipediaThis is why you observe electromagnetic radiation being emitted.

quote:

---

Pinches may also become unstable, and generate radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, x-rays and gamma rays, and also neutrons and synchrotron radiation.

---

As well as plasma being accelerated along the current pathways.
Particle accelerator - WikipediaDespite your claims of a black hole that does it. It is that 99% mainstream constantly ignores. It is not dust and hot gas out there. It is Plasma, the first state of matter, an electrically active medium.Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with a BB hypothesis, but even it claims that Plasma was the very first form of matter. Electrically charged and highly conductive. Only 1% has formed into solids, liquids and gasses. Yet this 1% is what mainstream bases the other 99% on, then wonder why they need Fairie Dust to explain the 99% they treat the same in their math as the 1% of electrically balanced matter.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.