Post by nicholashesed on Feb 23, 2014 1:52:52 GMT
Here is a post I retrieved from RSM Facebook. It was a pain to find so I thought I would post it here for reference.
This was when I first started reading WGDE. I was trying to figure out Einstein's Cross and Gaede comes to the rescue:
Nicholas: “The signal of the quasar is relayed by the atoms of the stars at the edges of the galaxy.”
.
Bill: This is an error in reasoning. Stars are not transparent. Therefore, the situation involving a quasar relaying thru a galaxy is not at all like a star relaying thru the CORONA of the Sun. We can’t just replace the corona with stars and continue as if nothing. A ring of stars like the hula hoops formed by stars at the center of a galaxy is quite unlike the evanescent gas that surrounds a star.
.
.
Nicholas“we have light signals reaching the Earth from the galaxy down four distinct ropes”
.
Bill: This appears to be an oversimplification of the problem at hand. The proponent must start by making an ASSUMPTION before he moves on to explaing the phenomenon. The crowd has to get the initial scene, first frame or series of frames of what the presenter is going to explain. The assumptions are:
.
a. “their are four quasars”
.
or
.
b. “The Einstein Cross… is ‘A’ gravitationally lensed quasar”
.
We can’t have it both ways. The presenter either ASSUMES that there is one or that there are four objects.
.
IF the researcher assumes that there are four and can’t find a rational explanation for this phenomenon, he might work his way backwards and conclude that there is only one object BEFORE he comes to the conference. Or vice versa! The assumption determines what theory is based upon it. The theory must follow from and be consistent with the assumption.
.
But the quasar assumption itself is a contradictory mystery in Relativity Religion. The quasar is ASSUMED to be a very brilliant galactic NUCLEUS!
.
Funny… I thought ALL galactic nuclei were supposed to have a dark black hole in their centers! How do relativists reconcile a shiny nickel with the dull entrance of a rabbit mansion?
.
Of course, it may not be important for the instant Q whether the light emanates from a flashlight. If we assume that there is only one object as orthodoxy tells us, we now have to discover how Mother Nature does this magic trick of converting 1 into 4.
.
One possibility certainly is that light from the quasar goes through four distinct coronas before arriving at the galaxy standing in the path of the beams. Therefore, the corona or aura of the galaxy already receives a re-transmitted image from four sources which it then relays to our eyes. Note that Einstein’s Cross is not symmetrical. Einstein’s relativity ‘predicts’ that the gravity well SHOULD be uniform and symmetric. The 4 images are offset; 3 to the left. Why? Why not a perfect, symmetric cross? Why 4? Why are the images so distinct? Why so shiny considering the distances we’re pondering? Quasars are supposed to be the most distant objects in the U… you know… like as distant as the Big Bang… The more distant an object is, the greater the ignorance of the relativist and the greater the opportunity he has to fill in the blanks with yet more non-mathematical poppycock.
This was when I first started reading WGDE. I was trying to figure out Einstein's Cross and Gaede comes to the rescue:
Nicholas: “The signal of the quasar is relayed by the atoms of the stars at the edges of the galaxy.”
.
Bill: This is an error in reasoning. Stars are not transparent. Therefore, the situation involving a quasar relaying thru a galaxy is not at all like a star relaying thru the CORONA of the Sun. We can’t just replace the corona with stars and continue as if nothing. A ring of stars like the hula hoops formed by stars at the center of a galaxy is quite unlike the evanescent gas that surrounds a star.
.
.
Nicholas“we have light signals reaching the Earth from the galaxy down four distinct ropes”
.
Bill: This appears to be an oversimplification of the problem at hand. The proponent must start by making an ASSUMPTION before he moves on to explaing the phenomenon. The crowd has to get the initial scene, first frame or series of frames of what the presenter is going to explain. The assumptions are:
.
a. “their are four quasars”
.
or
.
b. “The Einstein Cross… is ‘A’ gravitationally lensed quasar”
.
We can’t have it both ways. The presenter either ASSUMES that there is one or that there are four objects.
.
IF the researcher assumes that there are four and can’t find a rational explanation for this phenomenon, he might work his way backwards and conclude that there is only one object BEFORE he comes to the conference. Or vice versa! The assumption determines what theory is based upon it. The theory must follow from and be consistent with the assumption.
.
But the quasar assumption itself is a contradictory mystery in Relativity Religion. The quasar is ASSUMED to be a very brilliant galactic NUCLEUS!
.
Funny… I thought ALL galactic nuclei were supposed to have a dark black hole in their centers! How do relativists reconcile a shiny nickel with the dull entrance of a rabbit mansion?
.
Of course, it may not be important for the instant Q whether the light emanates from a flashlight. If we assume that there is only one object as orthodoxy tells us, we now have to discover how Mother Nature does this magic trick of converting 1 into 4.
.
One possibility certainly is that light from the quasar goes through four distinct coronas before arriving at the galaxy standing in the path of the beams. Therefore, the corona or aura of the galaxy already receives a re-transmitted image from four sources which it then relays to our eyes. Note that Einstein’s Cross is not symmetrical. Einstein’s relativity ‘predicts’ that the gravity well SHOULD be uniform and symmetric. The 4 images are offset; 3 to the left. Why? Why not a perfect, symmetric cross? Why 4? Why are the images so distinct? Why so shiny considering the distances we’re pondering? Quasars are supposed to be the most distant objects in the U… you know… like as distant as the Big Bang… The more distant an object is, the greater the ignorance of the relativist and the greater the opportunity he has to fill in the blanks with yet more non-mathematical poppycock.