The cosmic conspiracy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

remove cast of pearlsEdited by NoNukes, : pointless.

I love the way you say 'your own scientists'.What are you: twelve?But it has been quite crank free at EvC for a while; so please, do stay.

What about Peter Lamont, then? You've had a choice of people who are cranky about cosmology. Of course, justatruthseeker is wrong about a much wider range of things, but I don't think the contributions of Mr. Lamont should be overlooked.

Well, they are quite different. PL "discusses" by repeating his original claims endlessly. Justatruthseeker "discusses" by ignoring everything and starting a new "discussion" in each message.Perpetual motion at the Earth's core! Sheesh.

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.

Well, it appears that justatruthseeker is no longer here, or banned, or something. But Tom Bridgman found this thread and responded to some of JAT's gibberish at Death by Electric Universe. Radiation Exposure Revisited. Money quote:

quote:

---

But back to the points claimed by 'JustATruthSeeker':

​

1) Spacecraft are shielded and so the astronauts are protected.
JustATruthSeeker: "And yet despite all your claims all spacecraft and spacesuits are heavily shielded against radiation so those astronaughts don't get fried, funny how that works huh? And apparently TB isn't aware of tests done."

​

2) In the event of a particularly energetic event, there are shelters to provide more protection where the astronauts can safely 'ride out the storm'
JustATruthSeeker: "When in space and storms errupt, astronauts head to specially shielded rooms."

​

There are numerous conceptual and physical errors in these excuses. One wonders if JustATruthSeeker even read the links they provided. As I will illustrate below, they clearly did not bother to check the numbers or the measurements, a common failure with crank science claims.

​

The major area of misunderstandings about the radiation environment created by an Electric Sun:

​

1) The high radiation environment of an electric sun is running continuously. This is not a case of heading for the heavy shelter for occasional events. The astronauts would have to be in the heavy shelter all the time.

​

2) The particle environment needed to power a star electrically is far higher than that created by any measured solar proton event - and again, is running continuously, not in episodes.

​

3) The shielding needed to protect astronauts in and electric sun environment is far larger than anything we've used before.

---

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.

Ignoring the Gish Galloping, 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. Because Dr. Bridgman's calculations are demonstrably correct. I see nobody, especially you, can find any fault with his calculations The article to which you refer is not about the Earth, it's about the Moon. The Earth's magnetosphere protects us from any such problem. If it wasn't there, yeah, we'd be fried.And the article doesn't mention any current. I understand the concept of grounding just fine. Do you understand the concept of encounters with near-light-speed charged particles?Edited by JonF, : minor spelling error

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from?Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Since it seems everyones theory is as good as another's at this point I would say the fact that the math breaks down should give you a clue something is not right in wonderland. [/qs]The concept of Singularity simply means that at some point, we must stop explaining the process of the transformation from no material Universe into the sudden appearance of that material Universe.There is a point where we do not know, and where we have no apparent way to gather evidence in order to assume, the earliest details of matter formation.But it seems reasonable that we can say invisible, weightless, time independent, pre-existing pure Energy was where that matter and the accompanying necessary Space/time originated.
To be consistent, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy should more than hold before the BB, but indeed explain the source as Energy, which transformed according E = mC^2.It is perhaps entertaining to try and make the mysterious source of beginnings akin to a cosmic intelligence, one that scripture would then be able say is imaged in human Consciousness.
To excuse such a leap on the grounds that science can not verify initial pre-existing Energy because of the missing details of the Singularity of that moment is like saying tow wrongs make a right.The fault for this excursion into speculation can be set at the door of those scientist who have refused to apply the Law of Conservation.
Perhaps they fear the analogy between the mysterious nature of Energy which is defined only as an entity that can make things move, and the ineffable vagueness of what the Jews called "God" in their Western Epic of the Scriptures.Nevertheless, the suggestion of a Cosmic Consciousness being supported by plasma generated electric currents seems improbable.