The cosmic conspiracy.

Irrelevant, Haley's comet was believed to be a loose aggregates of material, a dirty snowball. That theory has been disproved, so that data has been disproved that led to its interpretation as a dirty snowball. The asteroids are NOT loose aggregates of material, they are solid, just as Deep Impact showed Temple 1 to be. they are asteroids on highly elliptical orbits that causes them to become negatively charges in the time spent in the outer solar system, As they approach the sun charge imbalance occurs, and electrical machining of scarps, mesa walls and sharp edges occurs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBD435S9MOI&list=UUvHqXK_...

But evidently without understanding it. Comprehension is a fairly important aspect of reading, wouldn't you agree? Unlike the ability to copy-and-paste.

From dictionary.com:

quote:

---

Geology .
a. mineral matter of variable composition, consolidated or unconsolidated, assembled in masses or considerable quantities in nature, as by the action of heat or water.
b. a particular kind of such matter: igneous rock.

---

from Rocks and classifications:

quote:

---

Making up the majority of the Earth's crust, rock is usually defined as a mixture of common minerals

---

IOW, the definition of "rock" is an aggregate of different materials (minerals).

unlike you where your own scientists are telling you something and you are ignoring them???? It's not like I said it, your own scientists say it, yet you disagree, funny how that works. Ahh, I see, data is only good when it seems to fit your theory, otherwise the data is wrong and not the theory, right? Hand waving, dismissal of evidence, makling up Fairy Dust, par for the course. Might not be so bad if every discovery in space since we launched spacecraft didn't come as a surprise to astronomers. So much for their predictive power.Now I got someone trying to tell me that Fred Whipple was correct about Haley being a dirty snowball when your own scientists say it has been positively ruled out that it could be that. Double talk and misdirection, that is all standard theory has.

So, you refuse to admit that you don't know what 'aggregate' means and you refuse to admit that your claim that (paraphrasing) "Rock is not an aggregate of materials" is wrong.
Not exactly something a truth-seeker would do, is it? Haley's comet was not believed to be a loose aggregate of material; a snowball is not a loose aggregate of material. Yes - much like a snowball.So - let's try and get you to finally learn something:
1) Rocks are an aggregate of materials.
2) Snowballs are an aggregate of materials.
3) Halley's comet is an aggregate of materials.
4) Halley's comet is not a loose aggregate of material.
5) A snowball is not a loose aggregate of material.Which one of those do you think is false and why?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Rock is NOT a "loose aggregate of materials" it is NOT a dirty snowball, what Whipple said Haley was and which all your theories said it was, and all your supposed evidence said it was.But Deep Impact proved all those theories wrong. Apparently you do not understand what a "loose" aggregates material is. Only the EU predicted it would be solid rock, up until the Deep Impact mission you still believed they were dirty snowballs. Now you want to try to twist it. You were wrong and still are wrong. it is a meteor, an asterpoid, there is no difference between the two. One day soon you will realize this, as I said, I give it 8 years max. The theory on the sun has collapsed, the theory on the solar system has collapsed, the theory on comets has collapsed. You are running out of theories, you better get back to the books and start dreaming up some more fairy dust.The kicker is you won't once reconsider your original theory that led to all these incorrect theories, just change some numbers, adjust the silly putty so the data seems to fit. And then in a few years you will need to do it all over again when that theory is disproved.A negative result time after time is a falsification of theory. For 20 years every test for Dark matter or Gravitational waves has failed, came back negative. How many falsifications of theory do you need? it only took 6 for you to conclude ether theories were incorrect. How many is it going to take for gravitational waves and dark matter?? We are up to at least 10, now examining the background noise in an attempt to salvage things, but still no luck.Grow up and be scientists and take it like a man.

Whipple did not say it was a "loose aggregate of materials"; a snowball is not a "loose aggregate of materials".
So - to put it bluntly - you are just plain wrong. Shall we add that to the list of words you don't know the meaning of?
Asteroid: "Asteroids are minor planets (small Solar System bodies and dwarf planets) that are not comets"
Asteroid - WikipediaEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

If you want people to take you seriously, you could lie less.I do not have any scientists, but if I did they wouldn't be telling me the crazy crap you've made up in your head. And you did in fact say the things you said, unlike scientists, who without exception aren't you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

well good, since they aren't your scientists you should have no problem admitting they were totally wrong about the composition of Temple 1, and by association, every other comet they describe.So if all their data before impact pointed to a loose aggregates of material, and they have positively ruled out any theories that rely on such, then all the data that claimed Temple 1 and Haley and every other comet was a loose aggregate of material is also highly suspect.You should look in the morror when you call others liers, since you do it every post in an effort to defend a theory that has been disproved. That's the sad part, that somehow you feel the need to lie in an attempt to defend a theory all the leading comet scientists say is incorrect.Why is that? Why attempt to defend a theory no one agrees is correct anymore? Not even NASA believes they are dirty snowballs any more. It seems that you are the only one that believes this disproved theory. Wake up, the future is here and is passing you by.You are letting your anger get in the way of reasonable thinking because you're upset that you were proved wrong. I understand. That's the typical response from 8 year olds, but I was expecting more from adults who claim to understand science. You are a fool and I will waste no more time on you.If anyone else wants to have a reasonable discussion we can, but fools and idiots will no longer be replied to.

So - you are unable to defend even your most basic of claims.
Well, not much of a surprise tbh, since you don't even know what a rock or a snowball is. No no, we will continue to reply to you.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

You are apparently insane. I have of course never discussed the composition of "Temple 1".If you are unwilling to respond to my posts, I quite understand your real reasons for running away from me. This will not, of course, prevent me from pointing out your numerous errors. It will, on the other hand, prevent you from answering back. That's fine by me.For example, I can point out that you are telling stupid lies about "Stephan's Quintet". According to your principles, you are unable to reply to me, and the fact that you are a stupid liar will go unrefuted even by you. That's OK by me.

Last time I'll answer since you continue to ignore the factsGravitational lens - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Unlike an optical lens, maximum 'bending' occurs closest to, and minimum 'bending' furthest from, the center of a gravitational lens. Consequently, a gravitational lens has no single focal point, but a focal line instead. If the (light) source, the massive lensing object, and the observer lie in a straight line, the original light source will appear as a ring around the massive lensing object.

---

it will appear as a ring in relativity theory.They are not rings, or even multiple images of one object, they all have filaments connecting to the CENTER of the galaxy they are interacting with. And as the quasar's increase distance from it's host galaxy over time, the filaments thin and the quasars become brighter as they begin to form into galaxies of their own.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...e/astro/eincros.html
Your own photo's disprove everything you've ever said which is nothing by the way, except to claim everyone else is wrong, haven't seen you present one fact yet. All you have ever done is say others are wrong without saying how. Because you have no how. Funniest looking ring I ever seen, pointing inwards like an X not circular like an O. At least get an explanation consistent with the observations, not in direct contradiction to what we see.
Oh, but that's right, we didn't have the technology then that we do now, couldn't see those connection like we can now, so you could get away with that explanation before, but our own technology is catching you up now.Here's another quasar not connected to it's parent galaxy according to mainstream.
http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htmEdited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Here is a more complete quote from Wikipedia.

quote:

---

If there is any misalignment the observer will see an arc segment instead. This phenomenon was first mentioned in 1924 by the St. Petersburg physicist Orest Chwolson,[1] and quantified by Albert Einstein in 1936. It is usually referred to in the literature as an Einstein ring, since Chwolson did not concern himself with the flux or radius of the ring image. More commonly, where the lensing mass is complex (such as galaxy groups and clusters) and does not cause a spherical distortion of space—time, the source will resemble partial arcs scattered around the lens. The observer may then see multiple distorted images of the same source; the number and shape of these depending upon the relative positions of the source, lens, and observer, and the shape of the gravitational well of the lensing object.[2]

---

How could anyone read the statement above and think that the images from gravitational lensing are restricted to simple rings shapes? But more to the point, I noticed your selective quoting of the wikipedia article that left the impression that only rings were possible outcomes.Why would an honest person quote mine in such a way?

I agree completely, you will see arc segments or multiples thereof. The post just agrees with meArc segments, third picture down, see em?
What is Gravitational Lensing? | CFHTLenSArc segments, see em?
New method of detecting dark energy discovered - Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community ForumArc segments, see em?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...e/astro/eincros.htmlYou've applied the theory where it is evident it does not apply. Because your entire red shift = distance theory is a house of cards in the process of being blown over.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

These bizarre ravings are not a reply to my post. Why do you think they are?