Supporting papers can be found here on my website in an article I authored on the
From my Knol post with annotated references:
• A recent study of Quasars shows them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and
stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity. Article on the subject here.
• Quasars with low red shift have been proven to be related to their host galaxy. This follows Halton Arp’s ejection model of quasar formation.
Paper proving quasars relate to their host galaxies red shifts, with the odds of correlation 1.5 in a million, can be found here. Further, high and
low red shift objects are observed to be interacting with each other. The odds of quasar/galaxy quartet NGC 7603 being a random chance alignment are
on the order of billions to one. However, NGC 7603 does not stand alone; dozens of other interacting objects have been
• Quasar red shift is observed to be quantized, as is shown in the published papers listed here. This means the earth must be at the center of the
universe in order for the big bang model to be true. Quantization is shown to be related to the harmonic 0.062 in quasar and galactic red shift here.
This relationship is also demonstrated in Arp’s paper above. This harmonic finding has never been refuted to my knowledge.
• Quasars brightness does not correlate to their observed red shift as it does with galaxies. This refutes the notion of “expanding space” and
the big bang. High red shift quasars can be well accounted for with known properties of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space. Several papers in
support of this here.
• Quasars with low red shift along with galactic red shift can be explained by the CREIL effect, a property of light acting in the plasma vacuum of
space interacting with diffuse hydrogen. This effect can account for all the effects of galactic red shift caused by “expanding space.”
• Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross” – this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar
being lensed into FOUR images. The individual quasars are observed to change in brightness independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are
visibly connected by plasma to the galactic core. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to
gravitational lens theory. The proposal that this is one quasar being lensed into four images is preposterous! The notion that gravitational
micro-lenses are the cause of this effect are at such extreme odds that it is next to impossible for them to properly account for the variations
observed over time. Recent papers on lensing read like a science fiction novel with a nearly infinite number of hypothetical postulates propping up
In conjunction with this argument:
If you agree that gravitational lensing is caused by black holes, it follows that you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit
If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lensing, then explain why we don’t see any lensing effects at the center
of the Milky Way. High mass objects bend light according to GR as was supposedly demonstrated in the 1919 eclipse paper here, given that, the
measurement arm excuse seems to fly in the face of standing theory. In fact, gravitational lensing theory has so many contradicting theories in
support of it, one can not find a single standard view of lensing to even refute. I could attempt to refute one model, only to face conflicting data
from another model, and so forth – of course none of the models are backed up by any laboratory experimentation.
Further, if we look strictly at the observational evidence in support of lensing, excluding red shifts, we find that halo structures are all that’s
left to explain. If the assumption is made that red shift is caused by some other property beside expanding space, all one needs to do is explain the
observed halo effects and light refraction. There exists in our own solar system such a massive halo effect that is not caused by gravitational
lensing. The Phoebe ring of Saturn is a great example of a non-gravitational lensing halo. Also on the galactic scale, the Abell 3376 galaxy cluster
exhibits a ring system that is not due to “gravitational lensing" as do numerous other galaxies and galaxy clusters such as Hoag's object. Ring
formations are a common occurrence in space, the majority of which are totally unrelated to any proposed "lensing."
Further, given that we know its possible to bend light here on earth without gravity, it stands to reason that there is probably some real property of
plasma acting in space that can account for what is observed. Magneto-optical effects such as self-focusing have not been thoroughly reviewed as a
possible cause of the observed visual distortions around the Sun. Given the electric model, it seems such effects could possibly account for the
observed refraction of light.
Dark matter claims thrown into doubt by new data
Shiga D. ,New Scientist, May 2010
First Results from the XENON10 Dark Matter Experiment at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory
Angle J., et al. ,Phys.Rev.Lett.100:021303, 2008
Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers
Zyga L., PhysOrg, 9 April 2010
On time dilation in quasar light curves
Hawkins M. R. S., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x
Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies
Arp H., et al, Max-Planck-Institut fÄur Astrophysik, preprint 2010
The nature of QSO redshifts
Stockton, A. ,ApJ, Part 1, vol. 223, p. 747-751, 753-757, 1 August 1978
Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion
Lopez-Corredoira M. , Gutierrez C. M. ,Astron.Astrophys. 390 L15, 2002
Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
Russel D. G. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci.,Vol.298, No. 4, pp. 577-602, August 2005
Further Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
Russell D. G. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci.,Vol. 299, No. 4,pp. 387-403, October 2005
Red shift - Expanding Space
Reference Web Site
Discrete Intrinsic Redshifts from Quasars to Normal Galaxies
Bell M. B ,arXiv:astro-ph/0211091v1 5 Nov 2002
Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
Roy S. ,et al. ,arXiv:astro-ph/0701071v, January 2007
Propagation of light in low-pressure ionized and atomic hydrogen: application to astrophysics
Moret-Bailly, J. ,Plasma Science. IEEE Trans., vol. 31, issue 6, pp. 1215-1222, December 2003
Identifying Anomalies In Gravitational Lens Time Delays
Congdon A. B. ,et al. ,ApJ 709 552, 2010
Microlensing variability in the gravitationally lensed quasar QSO 2237+0305 . the Einstein Cross
Eigenbrod A. ,et al. ,A&A, No. 8703, 1 February 2008
I really enjoy reading your posts on this subject and I can only wish I had the ability to put my own thoughts about this as eloquently as you do. I
can never understand why physicist and the uneducated bend over ass backwards to kiss Einstein's ass like he's some god who figured everything out.
I've brought up the whole matter bridge issue with quasars and host galaxies only to hear retarded excuses of "it's just a coincidence". I meant,
that's a pretty amazing coincidence where every quasar that is near it's host galaxy is connected by a matter bridge. Really, every single one the
galaxy just coincidentally happens to be angled just right and happens to have a trail of matter point at the quasar?
People capable of actual thought are a rare breed. You should feel proud to be one of those few rare people capable of true thought.
maybe these quasars somehow effect quantum physics
rember being in two places at the same time also being connected over any distance also being exactly the same in both places now these things
what ever you call them are so powerful all laws of physics brake down at that point the impossible becomes the norm and anything can be true and
every thing can be false.
this doesn't mean Einstein was wrong the universe could still be expanding .
it just means these things don't follow the rules as we know them because for these things the rules just don't apply.
so light that doesn't have redshift ok quantum shift then wich means the light can be in two places at once wich means no redshift wich means
these are accutly all one and the same things there could be a million but they are the SAME one there just in a million places at once .
well read up on quantum theory that explanes what im trying to say better then i can
Originally posted by _Phoenix_
I just wish Eintein was still alive today, with all the new perspectives we have at present, I wonder what theories he could come up with. Oh
[edit on 12-5-2010 by _Phoenix_]
Einstein is rolling in his grave right now.
1. Einstein never believed in black holes.
2. Einstein didn't even accept big bang theory until Hubble presented his findings - of course, Einstein didn't live long enough to find out that
quasars absolutely refute Hubble's findings on galaxies.
3. Einstein readily admitted his theories were incomplete and did not provide a complete picture as to why matter should curve space.
4. Einstein at this point would have rejected his own theories in favor something more plausible, like plasma cosmology.
We see the same kind of scientific shenanigans going on with Alfven's work. Scientists use Alfven's MHD theory to model plasma in space all the
time, while ignoring everything else Alfven said about plasma in space.
Just as scientists ignore everything Einstein said about matter and gravity outside of his initial theories.
What's going on in cosmology today is a joke.
Its pure fiction written in the language of mathematics.
Originally posted by Dr Slim
i don't feel like posting a list of einstines accomplishments at this hour, but why would he gain such international fame if he didnt give any
Beats me... Why do people believe in a lot of wrong things, like deities or that they will win the lottery if they play just one more game?
I can't think of a single thing Einsteinian physics has been proven to be true.
"proven" is the key word here.
I love it when scientist issue a press release saying "new finding proves Einstein's relativity!" - while the finding in question uses black holes,
dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, frozen-in magnetic fields, etc.. etc.. to supposedly "prove" Einstein's theories are correct.
Einstein actually derived his theories of space from the work Lorentz did. His version of relativity IS LORENTZ's version of relativity minus the
It is interesting to note that Lorentz's version of relativity can account for things such as the GPS clocks in a much simpler fashion than
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.