Tell that to the inhabitants of these galaxies...
I suspect they'd say the other galaxy was nearby. And supposedly, that same fate awaits our galaxy before our sun dies out.
Posted on 01/10/2011 5:57:35 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Dear Bill. What you observe when you look out into the cosmos are electromagnetic waves. Whether they are generated by gravitational or electrical effects has no effect on whether they appear blurry or not.
Gravitational 'lensing' was concocted to rescue the standard theory from the excess number of high red-shift quasars that are observed around lower red-shift galaxies. It is assumed that the high red-shift quasars must be 'lensed' from behind.
Therefore, the 'phenonenon' of 'lensing' derives from observations that do not fit the theory, nothing more.
But look. We are right back to the point where you need to learn that the model does not define reality. How about that. Apparently, it just permeates your thinking.
Why no Mr. Bill. As I clearly said. The standard cosmological model where 96% of matter and energy are invisible by definition so that the model can 'work'. Maybe those 'phototons' [sic] didn't reach your eyes?
The incomplete model, of which QM models are an intricate part; QM Models, the accuracy and usefulness of which, are self-evidently demonstrated on the very technology you're using to disseminate your religionist drivel.
No, gravitational lensing is OBSERVABLE. It conflicts with neither GR or SR, and it is an observable and predicatable effect in both.Meanwhile, here in the Reality Universe - evidence to support your cosmological model is simply... not.Instead, what what we see on this Real (old) Planet are multi-kilowatt transmitting radio towers and electro magnets - that are not blurry and do not bend light. While gravity clearly does.
...must be explained away in order to prop up your mendacious religionist facade that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
OK, have it your way. The incomplete model which requires 96% invisible matter and energy to 'work'. Were science not dominated by philosophical naturalists, the incomplete model would have been reconized as being falsified long ago.
"No, gravitational lensing is OBSERVABLE. It conflicts with neither GR or SR, and it is an observable and predicatable effect in both."
Let's look at Einstein's Cross. Scroll down.
"In the mid-1980's, astronomers discoveed these four quasars, with redshifts about z = 1.7, buried deep in the heart of a galaxy with a low redshift of z = .04. (The central spot in this image is not the whole galaxy but only the brightest part of the galaxy's nucleus.) When first discovered, the high redshift quasar in the nucleus of a low redshift galaxy caused a panic. To save the redshift/distance conviction, gravitational lensing had to be invoked despite Fred Hoyle's calculation that the probability of such a lensing event was less than two chances in a million!"
"A change in brightness of the quasars was observed over a period of three years. Arp's explanation is that the galaxy has ejected four quasars, which are growing brighter with age as they move farther from the nucleus. The lensing explanation is that the bending of the light varies when individual stars pass in front of the quasar. If the lensing explanation were correct, the quasars should brighten briefly and then fade as the star moves out of alignment."
"Meanwhile, here in the Reality Universe - evidence to support your cosmological model is simply... not."
Only true if you see no plasmas or magnetic fields as you look into the cosmos.
"...must be explained away in order to prop up your mendacious religionist facade that the Earth is only 6000 years old."
Actually, it is the mendacious, disingenuos facade of the philosophical naturalists that must be propped up against all evidence. Instead, what what we see on this Real (old) Planet are multi-kilowatt transmitting radio towers and electro magnets - that are not blurry and do not bend light. While gravity clearly does.
Einstein's Cross was an easy example of the falsification of gravitational lensing, not a claim that all gravitational lensing is related to quasars. If you can't support gravitational lensing for Einstein's Cross, how are you going to support it for supposed 'examples' where the 'lensing' object is totally invisible? I notice that you answer none of the objections to Einstein's Cross being a lensed quasar. Do you acknowledge that Einstein's Cross is not a gravitationally-lensed quasar?
"2. I don't have any problem with a universe where 96% of the energy is in a state where localization is insufficient to manifest the strong forces required to form matter - but is still sufficient in some areas to manifest the weak gravitational forces... that are observable as gravitational lensing in "empty" space."
Of course you don't have a problem with a universe where 96% of the matter and energy are invisible by definition. That is a perfect example of the tunnel-vision so common in 'science' that I spoke of earlier. This doesn't even qualify as science, this is a philosophical belief that is exactly what you erroneously accuse me of engaging in. Your tendency to project your own shortcomings onto others is becoming obvious.
And, you misrepresent the issue. 96% of the energy and matter are claimed to be 'dark', meaning that they are invisible to detection, by definition. Dark Matter was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and measurements based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium." IOW, it was made up out of whole cloth because the observations didn't fit the model. Your comment about 'localization being insufficient to manifest the strong forces required to form matter' is just BS intended to make the pink unicorn appear more substantial.
And I notice that Einstein's Cross is one of the examples in the Wikipedia link included in your search results. If you can't even defend that one, why do you include it in your list of references? Just throwing a bunch of crap against the wall in an effort to get 'something' to stick, apparently.
Go crawl back under your 6000 year old dogmatic rock. I’m done wasting time on you.
Translation: You have no rebuttals and are forced to resort to grade-school name calling.
And, if you are 'done wasting time on me', why do you post to me again almost an hour later on another thread?
Not any more invisible than the air you breath or the internet.
No, it's an application of Occam's Razor and a expressive recognition of the relationship between mass and energy.Got E=mc^2?Do you likewise deny the potential energy in the wind - because it's "invisible"... to you?
>>Do you likewise deny the potential energy in the wind
Do you likewise deny the KINETIC energy in the wind
"Not any more invisible than the air you breath or the internet."
No Mr. Bill. Dark energy and dark matter are invisible by definition. Air is a gas and gas is visible. Your 'internet' crack, oh well. Lack of real evidence leaves only mind-spasms.
"No, it's an application of Occam's Razor and a expressive recognition of the relationship between mass and energy. Got E=mc^2?
No Mr. Bill. Dark energy and dark matter supposedly do not interact w/ normal matter and energy except as a gravitational effect.
"Do you likewise deny the potential energy in the wind - because it's "invisible"... to you?"
Wind is air is gas is visible. Dark energy and dark matter are invisible by definition.
Please, let's see some more contortions of normal meanings.
>>Dark energy and dark matter are invisible by definition.
Only in the Religionist NewSpeak dictionary.
Is the internet invisible?
>>Wind is air is gas is visible.
Didn’t ask about the gas. I asked about the energy conveyed therein.
Does your inability to see that energy render it non-existent? No, it does not.
Reality is that which exists regardless of whether you can see it, or not.
No Mr. Bill. Dark matter and dark energy are invisible by definition.
"Is the internet invisible?"
Even if you define the internet at the level of the electron, an electron is visible as is electromagnetic energy. Dark energy and dark matter are not.
No, you asked about the 'potential energy'. There is no telling what you mean by that statement.
"Does your inability to see that energy render it non-existent? No, it does not."
Dear Mr. Bill. Whatever energy the wind may possess is visible as heat, electric charge, electron state, etc, depending on how you define it. Dark energy is not visible as any of those. It is only assumed to exist because of unexpected observations that don't fit the standard cosmological model.
"Reality is that which exists regardless of whether you can see it, or not."
You might as well claim that pink unicorns are reality and exist regardless of whether you can see them or not.
Actually, that is the "assumed graviational effect" which is required because of the gravity-only model. And pigs don't fly up temple steps because they obey the laws of gravity as they apply to observable matter.
What the dark matter claim does is say that we observe pigs flying up temple steps and that there is an invisible dark matter mass over the pig that lifted it up the temple steps in contradiction to the mass of observable matter.
I was afraid you were going to become very confused before too long.
Tell that to the inhabitants of these galaxies...
I suspect they'd say the other galaxy was nearby. And supposedly, that same fate awaits our galaxy before our sun dies out.
Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Ba'al
--The Who?
You are simply wrong, Mr. Bill. Electromagnetic energy is visible. The same is not true for so-called "dark" energy.
"But then, that reality undermines your dogmatic supposition of a 6000 year old universe."
Only in Mr. Bill land where visible is equal to invisible.
"Meanwhile, some of us have looked beyond such dogmatic splinters -- toward deconstructing the effect of same in causing the rejection of the Gift of Reconciliation that has been provided by Nature's Creator."
No Mr. Bill. That's merely navel lint.
"You'll just have to get used to the fact that we old-Earthers are still reconciled to our Creator - despite your master's efforts to the contrary."
Never said anything about your salvation, Mr. Bill. Why do you misrepresent that I did?
"No Fleece for YOU!"
Darn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.