The cosmic conspiracy.

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

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.

Perhaps you overestimate the power of wind.

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.

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

Was that the one that consisted mostly of nonsensical ramblings, or the other one that consisted mostly of nonsensical ramblings? I forget.

In Tom Bridgman's most recent two posts on his blog (Discord for Discordant Redshifts. I. and Discord for Discordant Redshifts. II.) he discusses the Arpist's claim that many high-redshift quasars are physically very close to nearby regular galaxies. He lists "A correlation that higher-redshift objects tend to be closer to the foreground galaxy" and "The claimed low-probability of such alignments and associations." as two of three reasons for this claim.He goes on to show that the low probability calculation is flawed by considering the field of view as a two-dimensional portion of a sphere rather than a slice of three-dimensional space, and demonstrates algebraically and pictorially that the correct calculation shows that such apparent alignments are actually pretty probable.He even dug up an obscure paper from 1974 (and cited five times) in which the same analysis and more was published.Not that it'll make any difference to jusstatruthseeker, but interesting to those of us in the reality-based community.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The best comedy is always unintentional. That was priceless, thank you.Nonetheless, since I assume it is not actually your intention to come off as a hapless buffoon ignorant of the very vocabulary of astronomy, now would be a good time to start listening to NoNukes.