It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cosmological Mystery: Quasars

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Quasars are some of the most mysterious objects in the universe.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Quasars are distinguished from other astronomical objects by a number of bizarre characteristics. They are incredibly far away (at the very end of the universe) and also are extremely bright (100 times brighter than a galaxy). Yet quasars are not particularly big. They are probably no bigger than our own solar system.

So picture this: at the very end of our universe, exists a region containing the equivalent brightness of 10 trillion stars, all jam packed into an area the size of our solar system.

The farthest of these Quasar objects is estimated to be over 10 billion light-years away. We can only see it, across that vast distance, because it is so incredibly bright. Not only is it one of the farthest objects we know of, it is also one of the very brightest.

There are a lot of theories regarding Quasars, and some consensus exists that Quasars are actually super-massive black holes. But who the can really say? Stephen Hawkins, who first postulated the idea of black holes, now has revised a lot of his thinking about black holes. It may be that we have based our reasoning on something that is actually not possible.

All we know is that these incredibly bright, small, distant objects exist. We can see them clearly. We have discovered 100 thousand of them.

The universe is quite strange and mysterious. In most cases, all we can do is speculate, come up with reasonable theories, but never know for sure.

It is very frustrating!

Edit: We only discovered Quasars in the 1960's. Will more powerful telescopes reveal even greater strangeness and mystery?

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Buck Division]




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Just thinking aloud here but it is certainly possible, given the multiple universe theory, that they are gateways or portals to separate bubble universes.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Quasars are only assumed to be far away because of their relatively higher redshift. However, observations made by Halton Arp, since back when Quasars were first discovered, indicate that they might actually be associated with AGN (Active Galactic Nuclei) that emit them. There are correlations between a central AGN, and emitted quasar that indicate the matter comes out with a much higher redshift and that it lowers over time as the quasar moves away from the host galaxy. Halton Arp has written at least two books and numerous published papers on this subject, it is worth any serious researchers time to heavily investigate his findings. One of the great things about his empirical observations are that they promote an alternative view to the mainstream big bang cosmology. Plasma cosmology might someday be able to account for his observations, whereas in standard cosmology, they are simply discounted as false.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Just thinking aloud here but it is certainly possible, given the multiple universe theory, that they are gateways or portals to separate bubble universes.


I am thinking the same thing, Krysties.

As I study Quasars, I am thinking that they don't belong in the Universe They are something very strange -- they are so utterly different from the other objects we know about (stars and galaxies and such.)

It is like we found a diamond in a coal mine, and are speculating about how it got there.

Maybe Quasars are a clue to some fundamental structure of the Universe -- maybe gateways or portals as you say. They are as bright as 100 galaxies, but only as big as a single solar system. And, they seem to be immensely far away.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I'm not sure but I thought I heard that that glowing thing in the centre of the Milky Way was a Quasar



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
Quasars are only assumed to be far away because of their relatively higher redshift. However, observations made by Halton Arp, since back when Quasars were first discovered, indicate that they might actually be associated with AGN (Active Galactic Nuclei) that emit them.


Halton Arp -- this is great!

www.haltonarp.com...

This is a great site -- thanks for suggesting that. (I am embarrassed to say that I never heard of this guy, Halton Arp, until just now.) I have a lot of reading to do here



There are correlations between a central AGN, and emitted quasar that indicate the matter comes out with a much higher redshift and that it lowers over time as the quasar moves away from the host galaxy.


I was wondering about that also. It seems that we rely very heavily on the redshift to make these types of determinations of distance. How do we know that redshift isn't being caused by something else, other than that the object itself is moving away, hence is very far away?

The obvious thing I was thinking -- maybe Quasars are much closer to us than we know, but in this case are just moving rapidly away from us for some reason, still unknown. That would account for their incredible brightness and their high redshift.

I will read the reference you suggested before commenting further.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 128hoodmario
I'm not sure but I thought I heard that that glowing thing in the centre of the Milky Way was a Quasar


A Quasar is quite different from the core of a galaxy. It is something like a galaxy, but much different.

First, Quasars are much much farther away than the center of our galaxy.

We are about 30 thousand light years from the center of our galaxy. The nearest Quasar is around 2 BILLION light years away, with the farthest Quasar we know being nearly 14 billion light years away. That is really far away, at the very end of the universe.

If our Galaxy was the size of a baseball, the nearest Quasar would be maybe 12 miles (say, 20 kilometers) away.

Secondly, Quasars are much brighter than our galaxy. They are about 100 times brighter than ALL the stars in our galaxy, concentrated into a very small area about the size of our solar system (so we believe.)

I looked this up just now. Some people speculate that our Galaxy might have been a Quasar, in the distant past:

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

But who really knows? It is all guess work. It is not something we can definitively test right now

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Could these quasars be new galaxies forming? They would be raw cosmic energy, being ordered, constructed by the forces that it generates, ultimately expressing itself as the many varying celestial bodies we recognise to make up a 'galaxy'? The centre of the galaxy is afterall similar to a quasar is it not? Or is this way off?


EMM



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
Could these quasars be new galaxies forming? They would be raw cosmic energy, being ordered, constructed by the forces that it generates, ultimately expressing itself as the many varying celestial bodies we recognise to make up a 'galaxy'? The centre of the galaxy is afterall similar to a quasar is it not? Or is this way off?


EMM


This is one of the possibilities suggested by the evidence. In his observations, Arp suggests that the quasars appear to morph into galaxy structure over time. An AGN might emit a string of quasar, which then have the chance to turn into their own nucleus after cosmological time periods. Whatever is happening it is a process, not a static entity, and very much in line with the possibilities suggested by processes within plasma cosmology. In fact, Halton Arp provided a lot of empirical evidence which helped to convince me of the validity of plasma cosmology.

One difference between Arp's view and mine, is that he and Narlikar theorize that it is fresh matter being created, whereas I tend to believe it is simply a transfer process, matter being ejected after transfer through the intergalactic currents. Could be semantics at that point. Arp suggested to me that a theory of matter be developed where the mass of matter increases over time after its creation. I believe he calls it the Variable Mass Hypothesis. It could somehow come into play, but regardless of the details, it appears to be driven through plasma type process.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Yeah gravity is weak and electrical forces rule where spinning or
flowing charges are in effect.

The Sun and now the spiral Galaxy are thought to have currents
going inward at the equator and out the poles as jets.

Perhaps being the same mechanism the quasar may be like the sun
and spiral galaxy:

The Big Bang Never Happened By Eric J. Lerner

A google book with electric cosmology and others for comparison.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
One difference between Arp's view and mine, is that he and Narlikar theorize that it is fresh matter being created, whereas I tend to believe it is simply a transfer process, matter being ejected after transfer through the intergalactic currents. Could be semantics at that point. Arp suggested to me that a theory of matter be developed where the mass of matter increases over time after its creation. I believe he calls it the Variable Mass Hypothesis. It could somehow come into play, but regardless of the details, it appears to be driven through plasma type process.


I am very glad you answered, I too am a big supporter of plasma cosmology and it's implications, aswell as the more...spiritual aspects of it.

I would probably lean towards the Narlikar theory, I'll be honest, I have no idea who he is, yet it is closer to what I was thinking, afterall, all we see is just an expression of energy, is it not? We see it as a 'physical' body (with reference to celestial bodies) yet it is a mass of atoms, all held together by EM forces (I doubt it is 'EM', but EM is merely an expression of a much greater 'entity'). As has been stated these quazars hold incredible amounts of energy, and yet aren't very big on a universal scale, so I saw them for the potential they hold, a construction yard for galaxies if you will, when critical mass is reached, then a 'little, big bang'?

I found this interesting:


"Arp suggested to me that a theory of matter be developed where the mass of matter increases over time after its creation. I believe he calls it the Variable Mass Hypothesis."


Energy propagating to form 'mass', do I have that right? Is he considering this for the creation of matter aswell? This is how I see it, the creation of mass from energy, that seemingly has none.

Thanks,

EMM



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
Quasars are only assumed to be far away because of their relatively higher redshift. However, observations made by Halton Arp, since back when Quasars were first discovered, indicate that they might actually be associated with AGN (Active Galactic Nuclei) that emit them.


Only cosmic rays are associated with AGN, cosmic rays have their source in AGN,


There are correlations between a central AGN, and emitted quasar that indicate the matter comes out with a much higher redshift and that it lowers over time as the quasar moves away from the host galaxy


The red shift of light will not decrease as it recedes from the galaxy, instead it will increase because of the distance covered while travelling through the universe, thats why distant objects are more red shifted that nearer ones.




[edit on 6/10/08 by peacejet]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Your post is a good example of the viewpoint taken from mainstream theory.

You are viewing what I said out of context, taking only the standard assumption of redshift. I was referring to Arp's observations which indicate a certain amount of 'intrinsic' redshift: that is, redshift which is caused by mechanisms not based on the 90 year old assumptions of redshift being only a Doppler type effect. There is significant evidence that many redshifts are caused by other types of process, which would invalidate the standard assumptions on which nearly all of mainstream cosmology is built.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
I was referring to Arp's observations which indicate a certain amount of 'intrinsic' redshift: that is, redshift which is caused by mechanisms not based on the 90 year old assumptions of redshift being only a Doppler type effect. There is significant evidence that many redshifts are caused by other types of process, which would invalidate the standard assumptions on which nearly all of mainstream cosmology is built.


I see your point, that red shifts can be caused by cosmological processes, though what you are saying about intrinsic red shifts is correct, you cannot entirely derail the doppler effect, it is applicable to all other standard cosmological observations.


And can you clarify this,


There are correlations between a central AGN, and emitted quasar that indicate the matter comes out with a much higher redshift and that it lowers over time as the quasar moves away from the host galaxy


Are you saying that the quasar leaves the galaxy over time, or were you referring to the light of the quasar.


And you cannot discard the doppler theory here, because, along with the intrinsic red shift, only if the galaxy moves towards us, will the shift decrease as in the case of the spectrum of andromeda, if the host galaxy was receding away from us, the light would be definitely red shifted.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
How many falsifications does a theory need to be proved false, according to Popper, the threshold is one.



Behold! redshift as distance empirically proven false. There are hundreds of examples like this, but this is my favorite. Different redshifts connected together by filaments. The mainstream calls these anomalies and ignore the scientific method completely.

Redshift does not equal distance the intergalactic distances have been skewed because of this false assumption. The Galaxies are not where they think they are. Even Edwin Hubble who suggested the Doppler effect, reversed his opinion favoring the tired light hypothesis. Not one I'm particularly partial to either.

The OP makes some simple common sense statements, They appear to be the most distant objects in the universe, except they display a luminosity that must be supernatural to account for the brightness. However if they are calculated where they appear to be in the local vicinity of nearby galaxies then their brightness is accountable.

So much is based on this concept, to have it proven false is to pull an enormous thread in the weaving of standard big bang cosmology.
And false it is, as you can clearly see.

So you see that the universe may not be expanding exponentially, One of the mighty pillars of the big bang falls, no one takes notice, and Halton Arp is prohibited from using telescopes in the U.S.
Is that science?

I believe the plasma cosmology view sees redshift as a level of current density, If a quasar shows a high redshift it is not because it is extremely distant, but young and in the early stages from a plasma discharge.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by squiz]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join