Talk:Einstein Cross

message: The article should be rewritten to discuss the concept called "Einstein cross" and then give the configuration of objects mentioned in the current version as an example of this concept.
An interesting point is that we must speak of configurations of objects (source, lensing mass, and observer) which are gravitational lens, rather than single objects which are gravititional lens.---CH  (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: such an article would sit at Einstein cross without the capital C. 70.51.9.199 03:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Einstein cross redirects here. Gaia has just found 12 more Einstein crosses, in addition to the ~50 already known. It has become a generic term and the article should be updated or disambiguated.--94.217.168.202 (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're commenting on a 16 year old post, please start a new section at the bottom of the page if you want to start a new discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: gravitational lensing phenomenon

message: I removed the "expand" request template because the details of the formation of the Einstein Cross are more appropriately included in the main article on gravitational lensing.  HEL 02:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "expand" request 

message: I'm proposing merger because I don't think that there's enough information here to deserve it's own page. It would be much more suitable to be under the gravitational lens and mentioned as thus.
Imasleepviking 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; this article is about a gravitational lens, not the concept of Einstein crosses in general. If we merge this article into Gravitational Lens, then we would need to merge the other articles about individual gravitational lenses into it too, which wouldn't be a good idea. Mike Peel 10:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with [[Gravitational Lens]] 

message: I can see why a ring like phenomena like in the article on gravitational lensing should appear. But why a cross? What is this mechanism for this "quadrupolizing"? Some expert should explain that in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agge1000 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I came to this article after seeing the image somewhere else looking for an explanation. I was amazed that the image wasn't either a ring or several deformed arc-like shapes. So it would be good if the article explained this. Why four copies, why those precise orientations, why the copies appear undeformed (circularly simmetrical)... --88.9.185.0 (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree again. After reading the article I immediately thought "well why isn't it a ring?" Then I tried to imagine what shape the lensing galaxy must have to exert such an irregular influence on the passing light paths. At that point I decided an expert is needed. So, can anyone improve the article by answering this question? 72.208.151.106 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Agree again. Without a more rational explanation, the quad pattern appears to support Time Cube! AltiusBimm (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: agree again, came here for the same reason, still no explanation hm. 92.196.69.216 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  7 years later and still no explanation... maybe add some annotation regarding article like http://milesmathis.com/lens.html to get experts attention? 89.76.146.175 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take a look here - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14056/how-does-gravitational-lensing-account-for-einsteins-cross cannywizard (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: why four "copies" instead of a ring? 

message: Why is it called "nearly perfect"?  In the image, it looks quite crooked.  It seems that the description should be more along the lines of "roughly forming a cross shape".
24.22.107.119 (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "forming a nearly perfect cross"? 

message: Einstein Cross is a prediction with multiple examples.  Latest is here .  Comments?  --DHeyward (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, "QSO 2237+0305" is the quasar commonly known as "The Einstein Cross".  It is not the only Einstein cross, however.  The link above is another example recently in the news of an Einstein cross and is known as Supernova Refsdal.   The hatnote by  to gravitational lensing is adequate due to Common Name.  I also fixed the reference in SN Refsdal.  The motivation behind the RFC was that the press is calling the supernova an "Einstein's cross" and the supernova article was referring readers here, not "gravitational lensing." A search for "einstein cross" brings a reader to the quasar, not the phenomenon so people reading the newspaper don't get the difference.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs to be renamed to the quaser 

message: Once this is confirmed by a better source, there is apparently an Einstein Cross in the first released James Webb image:
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/vwv1et/comment/ifs92ii/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 DanielTheManual (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein Cross in first released James Webb image 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion