Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

well this is interesting
we use type 1A super nova to show expansion of the universe
mabey if we used Quasars we could show the static nature of the universe,
it looks like the new evidence that time dialation does not ocour around quasars could put the big bang in question.

The effect can be explained because (1) the speed of light is a constant (independent of how fast a light source is moving toward or away from an observer) and (2) the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which causes light from distant objects to redshift (i.e. the wavelengths to become longer) in relation to how far away the objects are from observers on Earth. In other words, as space expands, the interval between light pulses also lengthens. Since expansion occurs throughout the universe, it seems that time dilation should be a property of the universe that holds true everywhere, regardless of the specific object or event being observed. However, a new study has found that this doesn’t seem to be the case - quasars, it seems, give off light pulses at the same rate no matter their distance from the Earth, without a hint of time dilation.

physorg

if we use quasars instead of super nova we dont get the time dialation expected
but what does this mean?
there cant be two rules that are applied to different objects unless the quasars themselves are a special case where the nature of the quasar makes it uneffected by relitivity and expansion.

Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.

how can we look at the evedence of type 1A super nova
and totally discount the quasar evedence?

i ask the question will we see a shift in thinking about expansion
or will we design a "work around" so the two bodies can be in direct opposition and not invaladate each other?

i beleive an optical effect is at work that confuses the observations

the first point would be super nova are expanding
quasars are reasonably static in nature

is the expansion of the super nova causeing the strange optical illusion
that we interperate as expansion?

xploder

Most EU proponents already knew redshift doens't indicate distance. The Einsteiners just won't admit they are wrong, alternate explanations and adjustments to the existing models will always take precedent over discovering the true nature of the universe.
Why make a model that fits the evidence, when we can make more money making the evidence fit our model.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Most EU proponents already knew redshift doens't indicate distance. The Einsteiners just won't admit they are wrong, alternate explanations and adjustments to the existing models will always take precedent over discovering the true nature of the universe.
Why make a model that fits the evidence, when we can make more money making the evidence fit our model.

Wow. This is exactly what is wrong with the world. Money makes people stupid.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Most EU proponents already knew redshift doens't indicate distance. The Einsteiners just won't admit they are wrong, alternate explanations and adjustments to the existing models will always take precedent over discovering the true nature of the universe.
Why make a model that fits the evidence, when we can make more money making the evidence fit our model.

Wow. This is exactly what is wrong with the world. Money makes people stupid.

It's not just money...people are just stupid in general.

PplVSNWO - EU/PU proponents are the only ones I've seen twisting evidence to try and make it fit thier models. It's enjoyable watching hard scientists shoot them down on UniverseToday in the comments section.

A true scientist looks at an anomoly like this, notes that it does not fit the currently held theory or model, and then tries to figure out why this is different than that. Once this is resolved, the model is altered as needed to accomodate. If the new find dictates that a different model is required that fits the data better, then this is what would happen.

If the Electric Universe idea and it's assortment of theories fits the data better, then all those scientists need to do is show it. Publish the math, get it peer reviewed, and if it stands up it then congratulations. The same goes for the Plasma Universe believers.

Pet theories are all well and fine, but they are just that. Unless and until there is peer reviewed proof, that's all they will be. So far the only mention I've ever seen is people from the EU/PU side of the fence decrying about the evil GR scientists and then throwing in a bit of gibberish that can fool laymen into thinking it's science. No one is holding them back...no one is repressing them...they simply refuse to adequately attempt to prove thier theories. When a holes are pointed out and documented, they whine like children who just had thier lollypop stolen about how the big bad bully will never let them win.

reply to post by XPLodER


Quasars are one of the most mysterious things in the universe. They're basically at the edge of the universe, yet we can see the light from them all the way over here in the Milky Way galaxy. Can you imagine how much energy that takes? There is more energy in a single quasar than there is in an entire average galaxy! I'm not surprised that they don't show time dilation, something that energetic and massive would be expected to alter space and time, much like a black hole. I've actually heard a theory that quasars are the other end of a black hole, what is called a "white hole". All of the matter inside of a black hole may pop up on the other end of the universe, or it could even be from a black hole in another parallel universe which leads to our universe.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Most EU proponents already knew redshift doens't indicate distance. The Einsteiners just won't admit they are wrong, alternate explanations and adjustments to the existing models will always take precedent over discovering the true nature of the universe.
Why make a model that fits the evidence, when we can make more money making the evidence fit our model.

i am the author of many threads about the optical universe
there are optical ways of explaining why we see an expanding universe
why we see red shift
i dont think its about money
IMHO
the paid astrophysisysts are not going to agree with an incomplete model
untill some one can come up with a more complete veiw of the universe
there will always be people who have observations that make no sence

i dont think the EU people have approached the problem correctly
instead of attacking the current thinking and lack of understanding
there needs to be a coming together for a greater understanding for all

there is a optical phenomonon in our solar/galaxy that acts like a series of lenses
very strange things happen when you look through lense at lenses
especially when both objects are moving relitive to one another

xploder

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Why make a model that fits the evidence, when we can make more money making the evidence fit our model.

Why? Because new models lead to winning the Nobel Prize.
Fudging the evidence to fit a preestablished idea doesnt really lead to much at all except the end of your career, since anyone else around the world will be looking at the same evidence (from the freely available sky) and call you out on it.

reply to post by Dashdragon


i personally think both EU and big bangers are partially correct
i dont think there is a conspiracy to block science
i am sure if something makes sence and fits with observations
it will get a fair look by all parties
but only when there is a reason found for the inconsitant observations
that satisfy both electric and cosmological models
and optical models if you read my work lol

will we really make stides forward

xploder

just some additional info for the laymen!

What is a Quasar? - CLICK ME

For me, these are some of the most fantastic objects in the Universe, I have thought for along time that some new information would be uncovered concerning these objects and most likely change some science books!

Originally posted by Helious
just some additional info for the laymen!

What is a Quasar? - CLICK ME

For me, these are some of the most fantastic objects in the solar system, I have thought for along time that some new information would be uncovered concerning these objects and most likely change some science books!

good point thank you for adding that
here is a picture of the tyco super nova



wiki super nova link HERE

thanks for adding that

xploder

how can super nova be traveling at very high speeds
while quasars are nearly stationary
this does make me ask questions of the doppler shift of stars and galaxies
if doppler shift is not seen in quasars
how can we use doppler shift in other bodies in space to know how fast they are receading from us?
could the red shift simply be an optical phenomonon and not expansion

wiki redshift or doppler shift HERE

ok so i would like to explain we think the universe is expanding based on observations of the type 1A supernova
there is a change in the luminosity of these steller explosions that suggests that the further out from our galaxy you get the faster these type of object are moving away from us.

this evendence was used to calculate the expansion of the universe,
but the quasar observations directly challange the expasion theory because light is not being "streached"
or "doppler" shifted on its journey to our telescopes.

so if we to observe quasars first we would asume a more steady state universe,
and if we observe type 1A super Nova first we would asume an expanding universe.

so which observation is correct?

27 years of observations have pointed towards a duality that cannot both be correct without some major new theories.

IMHO

there is an optical explination of the perceived expansion
ie
redshift can be reproduced in a lab
and the amount of red shift observed depends on moving lenses not expanding space

xploder

Originally posted by Helious
just some additional info for the laymen!

What is a Quasar? - CLICK ME

For me, these are some of the most fantastic objects in the solar system, I have thought for along time that some new information would be uncovered concerning these objects and most likely change some science books!

well if this information is correct then you are correct as well
quasars could blow the lid of some very big asumptions about our universe

the results have taken 27 years to compile
so i think there is a good reason to take notice

xploder

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Quasars are one of the most mysterious things in the universe. They're basically at the edge of the universe, yet we can see the light from them all the way over here in the Milky Way galaxy. Can you imagine how much energy that takes? There is more energy in a single quasar than there is in an entire average galaxy! I'm not surprised that they don't show time dilation, something that energetic and massive would be expected to alter space and time, much like a black hole. I've actually heard a theory that quasars are the other end of a black hole, what is called a "white hole". All of the matter inside of a black hole may pop up on the other end of the universe, or it could even be from a black hole in another parallel universe which leads to our universe.

i must admit its an interesting idea that the matter and energy has to go somewhere
but i wounder if the idea of black and white holes are a convenient way out of the conservation of energy laws
i will think on this subject for a while

thanks for challenging my conceptions
star

xploder

Xploder: I'm reading your comments and they are interesting and thought-provoking, I just want to make a little correction, as I understand it, what the data seems to be showing is that the light itself is "streched", and what remains constant is the time lapse of the light pulses, a rythm of sorts that remains in harmony throughout the universe (to put it poetically)
brainstormingly speaking (and with no respect whatsoever to the ever-standing borders of our present paradigm), my first thought was that maybe there is some accellerating process going on inside quasars that is creating a very powerful resonance, and that could be creating "ripples" in the space-time sea (of course not 2d ripples thats a way to visualize it) that, in turn, give the radiated energy the pulsing behavior we see.
So, what i'm saying is that Quasars may have a continual output that is modulated by a movement in the texture of reality. And that sparks exciting fantasies, about the implications of figuring out the mechanism that could generate this effect, and then, replicating artificially that effect, and voila, warp-speed
I will now continue reading the rest of your posts.

reply to post by drakus


i like your idea and think this explination is possable
if the quasar was (relitivistically speaking) able to "ripple" space time
and the light was to travel in the creast of the "ripple" like a surfer does on a water wave
then the timing and energy would be preserved with out "streaching" or cosmological expansion.

on the other hand the amount of energy required to overcome streaching or shift would have to be proportional to the amount of shift over distence
and different distences show the same result
so the ripples would have to be traveling at the exact right speed to compress the light over the distence regaurless of distence.

another idea is that optically our galaxy and helio "bubble" is the correct prescription optically to interact focally with the lense around a quasar like a space based telescope or "strong gravatational lensing"
and the super nova is not optically able to "telescope" the light to our obserable position and so is required to transverse the distence without being inhanced or focally lensed to our observers

and another idea is that we should test the quasar distence/luminosity equation and use quasars as cosmic measuring sticks instead of chefid variables (current distence "yardstick") and see if there is a perceived difference in distence.

the way i interperted the article the light from quasars was uneffected by expansion
can you clarify your interpretation?

xploder

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Quasars are one of the most mysterious things in the universe. They're basically at the edge of the universe, yet we can see the light from them all the way over here in the Milky Way galaxy. Can you imagine how much energy that takes? There is more energy in a single quasar than there is in an entire average galaxy! I'm not surprised that they don't show time dilation, something that energetic and massive would be expected to alter space and time, much like a black hole. I've actually heard a theory that quasars are the other end of a black hole, what is called a "white hole". All of the matter inside of a black hole may pop up on the other end of the universe, or it could even be from a black hole in another parallel universe which leads to our universe.

You bring up a great point here. I wonder if the surrounding light redshifts (from the stars that make up the galaxy surrounding the quasar). If only the light of the quasar does not, then...well, that is baffling. It also speaks volumes I think, that they are all so distant.

reply to post by drakus


ok thought provoking........................
if we can see through gravatational lenses at light that is billions of years old
that we would not normally see without the gravatational lens,
does that mean that light can travvel faster through a lens than through space?
if so does that mean that light can travel faster than the speed of light under certain conditions?

what i mean is
image an object (that we can see)
now the same image through a gravatational lens
we can see the object at an earlyer age in the lens image than by direct observation
so does light really travel faster through the lens
or slower through space?

and if light can "travel" a faster route through the lens
what happens if every thing we see is lensed

xploder

reply to post by drakus


ok so after re reading the article
i realise that the pulses are evenly spaced regardless of distence to object
so this means this light is not being streached and the pulses are not further away apart from pulse like they should be if doppler shift or universal expansion is ocouring

this means one of three things

first the quasars are not at the distence indicated by there red shift
or
quasars are being lensed by our galaxy/heliosphere lenset
or
quasars are acually pulsing the fabric of space and the light is "riding the wave" to our telescope there by over coming the expansion of space (suggested by other poster)

can anyone add to the list?

added by alfa1 "pulsars of varying distence may have different properties"


xploder

This is, indeed, an interesting phenomena.

I believe there was another study done on quantized red-shift values of galaxies: cdsweb.cern.ch... .

Honestly, it's all a bit beyond our reach. We see the pulses of a quasar and presume the light is traveling from the quasar to us. We have no reason, as of yet, to challenge this conception - but it is, none the less, a preconception we have about the mechanics behind a quasar.

Likewise - we see red-shift and begin to equate it to expansion of the universe and distance. This may not necessarily be the case.

Cosmology is really where we run into a few major problems with the balance between an "open mind" and "sticking to the facts." The known facts about what is out there are almost non-existent... so you have to approach things with an open and creative mind to try and envision what -could- be going on... but it's like a blind man trying to guess at the content of a painting he can only feel. Most of the stuff in it he's never seen. To view it requires abilities he doesn't have. And to speculate on it is audacity at its finest.

Originally posted by XPLodER
can anyone add to the list?

The more distant quasars, formed earlier in the universe's history, do not behave exactly the same as the closer (newer) quasars.