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.

 

Quasars - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I give a layman's explanation in this video set:

Playlist here.

Supporting papers can be found here on my website in an article I authored on the subject.

From my Knol post with annotated references:
--------

• A recent study of Quasars shows them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation.[8][9] 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 observed.[76][77][78][79][80]

• 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.[81][82]

• 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.[83]

• 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.”[84]

• 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 the theory.[85][86][87][88]

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 gravitational lenses;

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.[89]

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."[90][23][91]

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.[92]

--------------------

References:

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

Grey Matter vs Dark Matter
www.holoscience.com...

The Einstein Cross
Thunderbolts Jul 26, 2004

Relativity and the 1919 eclipse
ESA Press Release, 13 September 2004

Saturn's biggest halo revealed
Sample I. ,Guardian.co.uk, 7 October 2009

On the nature of Hoag-type galaxy NGC 6028 and related objects
Wakamatsu, K.-I. ,ApJ, Part 1, vol. 348, p. 448-455, 10 January 1990

Plasma Self-Focusing
Wiki Entry




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Great Thread!

Okay I am very dumb when it comes to this but it interests me greatly.

So would this mean space is not expanding? Because it seems like these quasars are acting like we would see them in real time?

Does this mean FTL is possible?

Enlighten me please if the questions I asked dont pertain to this.

Thanks again.

ETA: I cant watch the vids on this computer, so I dont know if my questions were answered within them.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Hellsmight]

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Hellsmight]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellsmight
 


yes, it means space is not expanding

yes, the video answers your questions



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Nobody likes to hear the truth.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
This is interesting . Ive only watched the first vid but will watch them all soon. Anyone who has tryed to prove Einstein wrong tho usually gets proved wrong themselves tho eventually.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Don't fret, I want to hear the truth.

Keep it coming I'm all ears.

And when I can watch those vids I will know more.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


I suppose it depends upon the definition of "proven"

I can prove anyone wrong if I'm allowed to use made up matter and energy in my equations.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Excellent post!

I especially appreciate the fact that the larger the mass, the greater the gravitational lensing SHOULD occur, yet this is where it is most evident it is NOT happening.

Very interesting and informative item.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Excellent post!

I especially appreciate the fact that the larger the mass, the greater the gravitational lensing SHOULD occur, yet this is where it is most evident it is NOT happening.

Very interesting and informative item.


Thanks.

I think its abundantly clear that quasars are not "black holes" in the center of super-massive galaxies.

Even a five year old could look at the evidence and determine the standard theory is a joke.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


S&F!

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.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I am a noob to this but, I have to stick w/ Einstein for now BUT I am all open.

Will watch the vids and get back.

I hope this thread stays hot and active. Very good thread.

S&F



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
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 well....



[edit on 12-5-2010 by _Phoenix_]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
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



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxcalbier
this doesn't mean Einstein was wrong the universe could still be expanding .


No, it pretty much proves the universe is not expanding.

There was no big bang.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

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 well....



[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.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
let's be honest, einstien was wrong about a lot of things, but was right about a lot more!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Slim
let's be honest, einstien was wrong about a lot of things, but was right about a lot more!


What was he right about?

Unnecessary second line.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
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 fundemental results?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

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 fundemental results?


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.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

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 fundemental results?


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 aether.

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 Einstein's version.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join