Theory of Everything

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and we and every galaxy in our corner of the Universe are moving toward it."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


AlexG said:
Moving towards it,NOT orbiting around it.
Click to expand...



And to add to Alex's clarification, it's not every galaxy in the Universe, just our local group, and surrounding clusters of groups. In fact in each corner of the Universe, it appears logical to assume, all have an Attractor and center of gravity, to which all are gravitating towards.
 
Thats why I posted that. How can you miss that bit of evidence when your hypothesis revolves around the gravitational force of the great attractor(which it seems isn't even the greatest attractor in our part of the verse)? Maybe he is someone with an agenda. You could probably make it on the church circuit, traveling the country spewing nonsense...

paddoboy said:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and we and every galaxy in our corner of the Universe are moving toward it."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



And to add to Alex's clarification, it's not every galaxy in the Universe, just our local group, and surrounding clusters of groups. In fact in each corner of the Universe, it appears logical to assume, all have an Attractor and center of gravity, to which all are gravitating towards.
Click to expand...

..
 
zgmc said:
What is the Great Attractor?

"While the Norma Cluster is massive, and local galaxies are moving toward it, it doesn’t explain the full motion of local galaxies. The mass of the Great Attractor isn’t large enough to account for the pull. When we look at an even larger region of galaxies, we find that the local galaxies and the Great Attractor are moving toward something even larger. It’s known as the Shapley Supercluster. It contains more than 8000 galaxies and has a mass of more than ten million billion Suns. The Shapley Supercluster is, in fact, the most massive galaxy cluster within a billion light years, and we and every galaxy in our corner of the Universe are moving toward it."


http://www.universetoday.com/113150/what-is-the-great-attractor/
Click to expand...

The Great Attractor is the center of mass of the system as evidenced in section 3. Anything beyond about 150 million light years begins to enter into this electromagnetic field "loop". All large-scale superclusters are the result of extreme gravitational lensing. The lensing causes clusters to form, they aren't ACTUALLY clusters, they are results of gravitational lensing. The supercluster filaments are directly the result of this phenomenon occurring and forcing very large amount of light into a single path, which we then observe as a HUGE supercluster when in reality its a bunch of separated galaxies with their light lensed into small filaments in the sky, arriving at Earth almost as if you swept a laser across the celestial sphere DUE TO LENSING not due to actual physical position. Think about it as a bunch of galaxies of varying distances from an certain asymptote towards the Great Attractor. Where all the galaxies have a certain angle that it can be emitted at (since they emit at every angle it will do so) such that their light from MANY locations will basically reach the SAME asymptote. This then goes through the Great Attractor (due to its density as I talk about in my paper) and then comes out the other side and arrives at Earth causing this huge sweeping filament, dependent on how bent each individual galaxy's light is (due to varying degrees of redshift).

Now, Shapley Supercluster is EITHER that exact phenomenon or its the Great Attractor's Great Attractor (which would be my best guess). I don't know, but that "I don't know" doesn't dismiss the evidence for the Great Attractor being OUR center of mass.
 
All large-scale superclusters are the result of extreme gravitational lensing. The lensing causes clusters to form, they aren't ACTUALLY clusters, they are results of gravitational lensing
Click to expand...
This, and the rest of the post is typically sscully nonsense. He's read a bunch of buzz words, and rather than learning any astronomy or cosmology, just makes shit up.
 
EVeryone knows about lensing. There are even equations to figure out how much lensing will occur. It has been taken into account. What is the main reason behind your need to come up with this explanation of yours?
 
zgmc said:
EVeryone knows about lensing. There are even equations to figure out how much lensing will occur. It has been taken into account. What is the main reason behind your need to come up with this explanation of yours?
Click to expand...

Evidence is my main reason. Section 3. Do you see an actual problem with section 3 that you can point to? Because it is EVIDENCE, which is what would need disproved. I am just telling you what the evidence tells me.
 
I get the impression that sscully thinks gravitational lensing somehow concentrates gravity.
 
AlexG said:
This, and the rest of the post is typically sscully nonsense. He's read a bunch of buzz words, and rather than learning any astronomy or cosmology, just makes shit up.
Click to expand...

Filaments, gravitationally bounded superclusters such as the Great Attractor and perhaps the Shapley Superclusters are instead the next levels up.
 
sscully said:
Now, Shapley Supercluster is EITHER that exact phenomenon or its the Great Attractor's Great Attractor. I don't know, but that "I don't know" doesn't dismiss the evidence for the Great Attractor being OUR center of mass.
Click to expand...



In actual fact its more like the following.....The Local Group of which we are a part, is a small group or cluster of galaxies, that are gravitationally bound.
Our local group is part of a number of other local groups, which together is know as the "Virgo Supercluster" ......
This Supercluster as far as we are able to tell, is loosely arranged in an even larger structure, called the "Sloan Great Wall"

Where gravitational lensing is seen, it is generally apparent, as in an "Einstein Cross" formation, and NASA does use the HST to utilise this gravitational lensing to see even further afield at much better magnification at much greater distances.
The lensing effect is caused by Intervening DM, maybe the occasional BH, and sometimes another massive galaxy lying between the 'scope and the object being lensed.

As mentioned before, the Universe has no center [other than anyone, anywhere being the center of his own observable Universe], and there are many great attractors, gravitationally controlling regions of other galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and walls of galaxies.
 
AlexG said:
I get the impression that sscully thinks gravitational lensing somehow concentrates gravity.
Click to expand...

I got the same weird impression.????
The following sentence taken from his post 226 is also rather weird....
"All large-scale superclusters are the result of extreme gravitational lensing they aren't ACTUALLY clusters, they are results of gravitational lensing"
 
paddoboy said:
I got the same weird impression.????
The following sentence taken from his post 226 is also rather weird....
"All large-scale superclusters are the result of extreme gravitational lensing they aren't ACTUALLY clusters, they are results of gravitational lensing"
Click to expand...

Filaments in the least. Shapley supercluster appears to be another Great Attractor since it has signs of gravity holding it together. I don't care what you think about that answer, but that is the answer for anyone who stumbles on this and is wondering.
 
paddoboy said:
In actual fact its more like the following.....The Local Group of which we are a part, is a small group or cluster of galaxies, that are gravitationally bound.
Our local group is part of a number of other local groups, which together is know as the "Virgo Supercluster" ......
This Supercluster as far as we are able to tell, is loosely arranged in an even larger structure, called the "Sloan Great Wall"

Where gravitational lensing is seen, it is generally apparent, as in an "Einstein Cross" formation, and NASA does use the HST to utilise this gravitational lensing to see even further afield at much better magnification at much greater distances.
The lensing effect is caused by Intervening DM, maybe the occasional BH, and sometimes another massive galaxy lying between the 'scope and the object being lensed.

As mentioned before, the Universe has no center [other than anyone, anywhere being the center of his own observable Universe], and there are many great attractors, gravitationally controlling regions of other galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and walls of galaxies.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you bring up the Einstein Cross (proving you didn't bother to look at my evidence). Look at Figure 5(c) (and 5(a) and 5(b) so you can understand the overall shape) of my paper and tell me how that isn't precisely a moving Einstein cross as a result of many galaxies being affected by one source. Notice how its four prongs that enclose Earth. That isn't by chance, it is because of the moving Einstein cross formed in the light from many galaxies due to the Great Attractor.

While you are at it, tell me how the four clusters in the orange supercluster filament are not an Einstein cross?
 
sscully said:
I'm glad you bring up the Einstein Cross (proving you didn't bother to look at my evidence). Look at Figure 5(c) (and 5(a) and 5(b) so you can understand the overall shape) of my paper and tell me how that isn't precisely a moving Einstein cross as a result of many galaxies being affected by one source. Notice how its four prongs that enclose Earth. That isn't by chance, it is because of the moving Einstein cross formed in the light from many galaxies due to the Great Attractor.

While you are at it, tell me how the four clusters in the orange supercluster filament are not an Einstein cross?
Click to expand...

Correct, I din't read all your stuff.....Most all of it is pseudoquackery and unsupported by evidence, except of course in your own mind.
Again, I suggest you somehow get some inside running in using some of the state of the art equipment and probes that NASA and other agencies have at their disposal.
The Einstein Cross is simply light from a distant QUASAR, that has been lensed and bent around an intervening galaxy.
What you chose to read into it is neither here nor there, and almost certainly will go unnoticed [as it should] by established mainstream cosmologists.
You're only fooling yourself as to any validity in your claims.
 
sscully said:
I don't care what you think about that answer, but that is the answer for anyone who stumbles on this and is wondering.
Click to expand...

What I think is of no concern...and guess what? what you think is of even less concern.
You won't change a thing, because you don't have a thing.

All in all you seem rather confused as Alex first noted, re the difference between clusters of galaxies, and gravitational lensing results.
 
paddoboy said:
Correct, I din't read all your stuff.....Most all of it is pseudoquackery and unsupported by evidence, except of course in your own mind.
Again, I suggest you somehow get some inside running in using some of the state of the art equipment and probes that NASA and other agencies have at their disposal.
The Einstein Cross is simply light from a distant QUASAR, that has been lensed and bent around an intervening galaxy.
What you chose to read into it is neither here nor there, and almost certainly will go unnoticed [as it should] by established mainstream cosmologists.
You're only fooling yourself as to any validity in your claims.
Click to expand...

So let's see. You dismiss my evidence while once more not bothering to look at it. See a pattern here?

Einstein cross is NOT "simply light from a distant QUASAR" that has been lensed and bent around "an intervening galaxy". That is horribly naive. It is, instead, SIMPLY LIGHT LENSED BY GRAVITY. If you bothered to read my paper, you would understand HOW it produces an einstein cross. But instead you choose the ignorant self-righteous path.

Why am I wasting my time when you won't even look at evidence with any real consideration? You claim to worship science and yet you have no scientific argument against the very real evidence I present you. Blind. Science is about TRUTH not about BEING RIGHT. There's a difference.
 
Is this the source of some of the graphics in your paper? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0091v4.pdf
The paper Cosmography of the Local Universe
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0091

This is an interesting way to look at the current data. Let me see what new conclusions I can draw from it.

There are some movies using the data: http://irfu.cea.fr/cosmography Try the English YouTube version.

Edit: Didn't someone post this with English subtitles a few months ago ... I wish I could find that again ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top