The cosmic conspiracy.

I note that nothing in your post is in any way responsive to my post. You've simply returned to posting the standard crank conspiracy stuff you know best.

The kind of force unification you describe here is not the same thing that justatruthseeker is ranting about. Under unification theory, the four forces split off at different times/energy level during the evolution of the universe and all currently behave quite distinctly.On the other hand, Justa believes that modern physics attributes too many phenomena to the strong force and gravity that are rightly electromagnetic. For example, he believes the strong interaction to be completely an electrical phenomenon. It seem likely that he believes that there is no fusion in the sun, and that the sun is powered by huge electrical currents flowing undetected through space. I'm sure your remarks will encourage Mr. Seeker further. He misinterprets everything.At this point he is promoting conspiracy theories of his own with absolutely no pretense at discussing the conspiracy that actually is on topic, however inane the original topic is or was. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The questions and your doubts regarding dark matter are not really relevant to the discussion of the Einstein's cross.The answer to the question for how the Einstein's cross can result is simple to understand. In this or other cases cases involving lensing, the distances between the objects, the earth, and the lens are generally so great compared to the dimensions of the lens, that the actual distribution of matter in the galaxy is completely irrelevant. As an example, all of the planets in the solar system are of appreciable size, yet for the purpose of computing the motions and positions of the planets, we can model all of the objects, including the suns, as point masses.Einstein Cross - Wikipedia

quote:

---

According to current interpretations of redshift, the quasar is located about 8 billion light years from Earth, while the lensing galaxy is located at a distance of 400 million light years.[1] The apparent dimension of this galaxy is 0.87x0.34 arcminutes, while the apparent dimension of the cross in its center accounts for only 1.6x1.6 arcseconds.

---

So the distances separated the objects are on the order of a billion light years. But based on the apparent major dimension of the galaxy, the separation between earth and the galaxy is more than 4000 times the width of the galaxy.So regardless of the mass distribution within a galaxy, the galaxy can, to a good degree of accuracy, be treated as a point mass for the purpose of assessing the lensing effect. Any affects due to being wrong about the distribution of mass would have minor visual effects.

Really. Because the article you cite says nothing of the mass of the lensing galaxy in the Einstein cross being insufficient.But since you know better, what mass would be required and how does the mass of the dim galaxy QSO 2237+0305 G compare with that value? You seem to be arguing my point and not yours.You next quote material including the following.

quote:

---

Also note that light is neither created nor destroyed by lensing, just redistributed.

---

A perfectly co-linear alignment of earth, the lens, and the distant object would produce a ring of uniform brilliance. Apparently the alignment is not perfect and we get four images of non-uniform brightness.Again, you aren't even trying to rebut my explanation. You are citing factual information, but even taking that material as true does not lead to the conclusions you offer.And quite frankly, given your stated position of not having problems with general relativity, why are you wasting time on a phenomena that involves extremely small deflections of light anyway? I understand why the relativity haters do it, but you claim not to be one of them. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Here is a more complete quote from Wikipedia.

quote:

---

If there is any misalignment the observer will see an arc segment instead. This phenomenon was first mentioned in 1924 by the St. Petersburg physicist Orest Chwolson,[1] and quantified by Albert Einstein in 1936. It is usually referred to in the literature as an Einstein ring, since Chwolson did not concern himself with the flux or radius of the ring image. More commonly, where the lensing mass is complex (such as galaxy groups and clusters) and does not cause a spherical distortion of space—time, the source will resemble partial arcs scattered around the lens. The observer may then see multiple distorted images of the same source; the number and shape of these depending upon the relative positions of the source, lens, and observer, and the shape of the gravitational well of the lensing object.[2]

---

How could anyone read the statement above and think that the images from gravitational lensing are restricted to simple rings shapes? But more to the point, I noticed your selective quoting of the wikipedia article that left the impression that only rings were possible outcomes.Why would an honest person quote mine in such a way?

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

Wrong. While I can now see how you are reading of the quoted portions, your interpretation is not correct. Multiple images formed in a rough circle around a center is a separate possibility from the formation of arcs. Here is a listing from Wikipedia article on Gravitational lensing of the possible outcomes. GR is definitely not limited to 'no other interpretation' than the one you claim. It seems that I've been able to catch you in errors every time you make a claim to understand GR.Gravitational lens - Wikipedia

quote:

---

There are three classes of gravitational lensing:[3]
1. Strong lensing: where there are easily visible distortions such as the formation of Einstein rings, arcs, and multiple images.

​

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.

​

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.

---

Surely you can understand that interpreting an article to rule out an example that it provides of a given concept is unlikely to be correct. Surely an interpretation that says that the most famous example of gravitational lensing is not really lensing must be wrong.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You won't be able to convince very many people by citing Arp. We have discussed hear numerous articles debunking quantized redshift as an artifact of using a small data set among other things. Repeats of the analysist using larger sets of data show no quantization. Arp is not a lone voice on this subject. But he is rightly discredited.This message Message 68 starts a discussion of Arp's position complete with references directly refuting quantized red shifts.Edited by NoNukes, : Add pointer

quote:

---

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

---

I can only assume that your misundertanding is willful. The same article being quoted identifies the Einstein Cross as a gravitational lensing artifact.ABE:
And I think even you would admit that the article does not intend to rule out arcs with no ring. Yet the sentence treats rings, arcs, and multiple images identically. So why are you singling out multiple images as the one thing that must be paired with one of the others in wikipedia's statement?End ABE
I'll add a scholarly reference to the mix just so we now what general relativity actually predicts.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992ARA%26A..30..311BAnnual review of astronomy and astrophysics. Vol. 30 (A93-25826 09-90), p. 311-358. Blandford, R. D. & Narayan, R.From page 312.

quote:

---

To date three distinct classes of multiple imaging have been identified, multiple quasars (i.e., double, triple, and quadruple images of a single quasar), arcs (images of high redshift galaxies formed by clusters), and radio rings (images of extended radio sources formed by intervening galaxies)

---

I understand that thunderbolts.info says differently. But I don't see any backup for any of the claims made on that site about what Einstein's cross ought to look like. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The images of the known Einstein rings are on the order of a few arc seconds in diameter. That description includes the four images of Einstein's cross. 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.Call the phenomenon micro lensing if you will. It is actually an example of strong lensing.Einstein Cross - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Einstein Cross or Q2237+030 or QSO 2237+0305 is a gravitationally lensed quasar that sits directly behind ZW 2237+030, Huchra's Lens. Four images of the same distant quasar appear around a foreground galaxy due to strong gravitational lensing.

​

According to current interpretations of redshift, the quasar is located about 8 billion light years from Earth, while the lensing galaxy is located at a distance of 400 million light years.[1] The apparent dimension of this galaxy is 0.87x0.34 arcminutes, while the apparent dimension of the cross in its center accounts for only 1.6x1.6 arcseconds.

---

What you are complaining about is the facial arrangement of the images around the center of the aggregate. A moments thought ought to convince you that your complaint is irrelevant. Note that if there were only two such images, no matter how few arc seconds separated the the images their facial arrangement would produce an angle of 180 degrees. Quite clearly you are wrong about which parameter is limited by general relativity to a few arc seconds.

For everyone other than justaseeker of truth, angular separation is a measurement of an angle having a vertex at the observer and not at the image object being observed. You need not take my word for it. Here is a reference showing the angle alpha and Einstein's equation showing the method of predicted the angle.http://www.pa.msu.edu/~abdo/GravitationalLensing.pdfSee Figure 2 which shows the location of alpha, and equation (5) which is the value predicted y general relativity for the angle.Here is a definition of angular separation from wikipedia

quote:

---

In mathematics (in particular geometry and trigonometry) and all natural sciences (including astronomy, geophysics, etc.), the angular distance (angular separation, apparent distance, or apparent separation) between two point objects, as observed from a location different from either of these objects, is the size of the angle between the two directions originating from the observer and pointing towards these two objects. Angular distance (or separation) is thus synonymous to angle itself, but is meant to suggest the (often large or unknown) linear distance between these objects (for instance stars, as they are observed from Earth).

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

To whom are you talking? You repeatedly say 'you' and 'yours' when talking about topics that nobody but you has even brought up.I suppose I should simply accept your acknowledgement that your original argument was wrong, and just forget about your ineffective attempt to save face. Einstein's cross substantially smaller than 6" as you have already acknowledged. 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?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Which article gives this dimension? You cited an article which indicates that the separation between A and B images is less than 2". I cited an article which says that the dimension of the Einstein Cross is about 1.6" by 1.6".Not that it really matters. Neither value is the 90 degree number you were insisting on.There may be other examples of Galactic imaging which are larger or smaller in dimension. 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.Small wonder you have glommed on to EU. You have no clue whatsoever about conventional physics, but you can get all of the nonsense you would ever want about crackpot science from a single web page. You have no clue what you are talking about, and I see no reason to waste further time educating you on what scientists actually theorize. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

remove cast of pearlsEdited by NoNukes, : pointless.

For a short while anyway. Recent cosmology cranks include P. Lamount, Maddenstein, designtheorist, sunshaker, TheRestOfUs, Noiartist, and zaius137 over the last 8 months or so.It seems to me that EvC attracts a physics crank or two every month or two.Of the 2 most recent cranks Lamont appears to be self deluded (Look ma! No math!) but there seems to be a cottage industry involved in pumping out the electric universe stuff.