Theory of Everything

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 ...

Yeah I posted those things in post 78. ;-D https://vimeo.com/64868713
 
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 ...


I just watched the subtitled video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCHi4hioFEI
 
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.

The Einstein cross refers to a specific event due to gravitational lensing.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950711.html

Why would I listen to your explanation of how lensing works, when I can just go here:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/grav_lensing_history
 
It's ended up being just another "tired light" theory. Nothing original in it. Just a lot of violations of physical principles.
 
Put it in a crank folder and let it collect dust on the shelf for several years. You'll probably throw it away someday after you realize the mistakes in it.
 
View attachment 7255

Here is an example of actual lensing.

On a smaller scale. Remember the Great Attractor is basically a super SUPER massive black hole that lenses ALL light we observe to a degree. It would not appear so simply, however if you look at Figure 5 you will see multiple Einstein crosses, as I describe. You are not arguing this fact whatsoever by referring to smaller scale lensing.
 
Gravitational lensing will not cause a photon to loop back toward the source, your figure eight pattern.
 
Gravitational lensing will not cause a photon to loop back toward the source, your figure eight pattern.

Not by a galaxy but by a galaxy of galaxies. Please explain why not; remember, all things are relative. Further, please see Figure 4 of my paper and the discussion thereof (section 3.2) www.cascadinguniverse.org for evidence of the flow I describe, along with the rest of the evidence that supports my claims. (sections 4.1 regarding the Figure-8 pattern and electromagnetism, and section 4.3 where I discuss quasars specifically which are very much evidence of what I am saying).
 
So let's see. You dismiss my evidence while once more not bothering to look at it. See a pattern here?


Yes. I in the main I always dismiss, God botherers, Alternative hypothesis pushers without real evidence, and anti establishment and conspiracy adherents


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.


I know how an Einstein Cross is produced by reading reputable science papers by reputable scientists.
Sorry...You do not fit into that category.


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.

I don't worship science as much as I abhore God bothering fools, those with delusions of grandeur, and tall poppy syndrome anti mainstream nutters.
You have not presented any evidence, despite how many times you claim that.
All you have done is applied your own interpretation and anti mainstream take on different aspects of cosmology.
You have not even come close to invalidating accepted mainstream models.
That's why you ignore peer review.
 
Yes. I in the main I always dismiss, God botherers, Alternative hypothesis pushers without real evidence, and anti establishment and conspiracy adherents





I know how an Einstein Cross is produced by reading reputable science papers by reputable scientists.
Sorry...You do not fit into that category.




I don't worship science as much as I abhore God bothering fools, those with delusions of grandeur, and tall poppy syndrome anti mainstream nutters.
You have not presented any evidence, despite how many times you claim that.
All you have done is applied your own interpretation and anti mainstream take on different aspects of cosmology.
You have not even come close to invalidating accepted mainstream models.
That's why you ignore peer review.

WOWWWW I'm so done talking to you. Your OPINIONS are in no way a scientific rebuttal, and you champion ignorance like no other. G'luck accepting your fallacies when you have to face them.
 
WOWWWW I'm so done talking to you. Your OPINIONS are in no way a scientific rebuttal, and you champion ignorance like no other. G'luck accepting your fallacies when you have to face them.

You are the one championing ignorance...you are the one doing the claiming...You are the one doing the misinterpreting....again, all you do is offer an unlikley alternative....nothing to invalidate the incumbent model, nothing to support your own hypothesis.
The onus of proof is on you, and you have nothing.
That's why you failed peer review, if you ever submitted to peer review.
 
You are the one championing ignorance...you are the one doing the claiming...You are the one doing the misinterpreting....again, all you do is offer an unlikley alternative....nothing to invalidate the incumbent model, nothing to support your own hypothesis.
The onus of proof is on you, and you have nothing.
That's why you failed peer review, if you ever submitted to peer review.

K. Later bro.
 
K. Later bro.
Yeah, once the discussion stops being about the topic and becomes about the person, it is best to wait for responses that are on topic. No response to a post like that, not even one like this, can go unpunished.

I am more motivated to look at your ideas and respond with questions when the incivility becomes inappropriate. The lensing idea is not without some foundation, and the view we have of the universe on the other side of the GA is bound to be affected by the interveening eneregy density shaping the light. How much lensing, what the things we "see" really look like from the un-lensed perspective, etc. are still questions in my mind, and open to speculation. Thanks for bringing us the topic. Too bad you are prone to hyperbole and visions of scientific accomplishment, because that attitude, coupled with the religious connection tend to fuel incivility, even in a Fringe forum. Later.
 
Scully, have you talked with any actual cosmologists about your ideas?

I've tried, I emailed a bunch once I started the website so I am waiting to see if anyone bothers to look into it. Unfortunately I am not a student so I don't have any help from a professor etc.
 
Back
Top