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.

 

Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


well that explination does make sence to me so i will add it to the list

pulsars of varying distence may have different properties

but if that was the case the type 1A super nova could also have different properties and that would invaladate the expansion of the universe

thanks for that

xploder




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Perhaps Halton Arp was right after all! A few decades ago he argued that quasars were local objects, within our galaxy. His theory was much to the displeasure of conventional scientists.

Maybe some day, some bright, maverick phyicist will theorize that quasars are actually much smaller than what we have assumed, besides being billions of light years closer, and will concluded that they are interstellar spaceships moving--to our senses--at the velocity of SOL toward our sun and have, in fact, arrived millions of years ago ahead of those light signatures. Naw! Too crazy even for sci-fi!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


ok that does make sence,
except the bit about space craft lol


Perhaps Halton Arp was right after all! A few decades ago he argued that quasars were local objects, within our galaxy. His theory was much to the displeasure of conventional scientists.


from this thread

Arp has some very interesting ideas
AND PICS

thanks
xploder



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
Perhaps Halton Arp was right after all! A few decades ago he argued that quasars were local objects, within our galaxy. His theory was much to the displeasure of conventional scientists.

Maybe some day, some bright, maverick phyicist will theorize that quasars are actually much smaller than what we have assumed, besides being billions of light years closer, and will concluded that they are interstellar spaceships moving--to our senses--at the velocity of SOL toward our sun and have, in fact, arrived millions of years ago ahead of those light signatures. Naw! Too crazy even for sci-fi!


halton arp
arps web page

thanks

xploder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The Physorg article doesn't mention how they "know" that one quasar is 10 Gly distant and another 6 Gly distant. They think quasars are standard candles; in other words they all have the same intrinsic brightness, so the observed brightness is inversely proportional to the distance. Actually, it's a bit more compex than that; the intrinsic brightness is a function of the spectrum. If that's how they are determining the distance, and the redshift is the same at all distances, then perhaps the brightness to spectrum formula is missing a time variable. In other words, maybe younger quasars are inherently dimmer. If that is so, then they are using wrong distance values.

I think Hawkins' paper has been misrepresented in the popular media. They are talking about time dilation due to the radial velocity associated with the expansion of space. Cosmologists use comoving coordinates, in which the rate of change of distance from the observer is called "apparent velocity". Special relativity is not applicable to this "apparent velocity" in comoving coordinates. There is Doppler shift in comoving coordinates, but it has nothing to do with time dilation. There is no time dilation do to the expansion of space in comoving coordinates.

There is another kind of coordinate system, in which the rate of changing distance is a real velocity, and distant clocks do run slower. But that type of coordinates is not used by mainstream cosmologists.

I'm not ready to pay my hard-earned so-shallow security to download the full paper from Wiley, so I don't know what he actully wrote before the popular media misrepresented it.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


So you are fine using optical distortion to explain away this "anomoly". But in the same breath are willing to believe that effects attributed to "gravitational lensing" are not caused by optical refraction?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by 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

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


xploder
edit on 10-5-2011 by XPLodER because: add reason


Which would imply that red shift doesn't indicate distance as light travelling through space is not subject to the doppler effect like sound travelling through air is. Which is what EU proponents have been saying for some time.
Space-time doesn't warp
Gravity doesn't bend light
And doppler effect does not cause red shift



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

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.


Would you rather have a Nobel prize, or an endless supply financing?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dashdragon
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.

Except this is not what happens. All that ever happens is another adjustment is made and on and on until you end up inventing things like "dark matter" and "black holes" to make your failed models work.



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.

How do you get a paper peer reviewed by scientists that are not your peers? It would be easy for papers to be evaluated by other plasma and eu scientists, but are you suggesting that scientists whos entire life work is based upon GR and SR will give that up by admitting they were wrong?

And, there are peer reviewed papers on plasma cosmology and electric universe.
edit on 11-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
And, there are peer reviewed papers on plasma cosmology and electric universe.
edit on 11-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)


Sorry, but no no no. There is not considering the countless times I have seen real scientists ask for such peer reviewed proofs, the closest thing they *might* get in a reply is a link to a personal website


Originally posted by PplVSNWO
How do you get a paper peer reviewed by scientists that are not your peers? It would be easy for papers to be evaluated by other plasma and eu scientists, but are you suggesting that scientists whos entire life work is based upon GR and SR will give that up by admitting they were wrong?


So wait, at one point you say there are peer reviewed papers and at the same time show a complete ignorance as to how a paper even gets peer reviewed in the first place?

Peer review means reviewed by other expert scientists in the same field. Peer Review

Sure another EU/PU scientist could review it, but they could not be the only ones to do so. The 'field' in this case would not be Electric Universe or Plasma Universe, but the Universe period. Which is the field of astrophysicists. The paper would need to be opened up to review to everyone in the 'field' just like every other branch of science.


Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Except this is not what happens. All that ever happens is another adjustment is made and on and on until you end up inventing things like "dark matter" and "black holes" to make your failed models work.


It's funny...that is exactly how science works. You come up with a model that comes the closest to fitting what is actually observed and then modify the model as needed in order to make it more accurate. That's exactly how science works and if you're saying EU/PU scientists have a problem with this process (the process that is the foundation of science itself), then they are seriously just crackpots and not scientists.

The adjustments don't lead to 'inventions' of things like Dark Matter and Black Holes. Dark Matter is and observed variance in data that suggests there should be more matter (yes, based on the current model) than we can actually see and so is therefore termed 'dark'. It could represent any number of things as it is truly an unknown at this time. Black Holes, however, are not an unknown and are measurable and observable, while not directly, but in thier effect on the surrounding space (our Galaxy for instance) as well as the finding of the predicted X-ray emissions and so forth.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

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 have no knowledge to judge what you say here, but the June 2011 issue of Discovery magazine has an article titled "Beyond the Event Horizen" written by Steve Nadis. It covers the black hole research of Andrew Hamilton. Interestingly, it's brought up that black holes might create universes and for a time they're connected to the black hole before being complete separated. I can't comment further on it. It's way beyond me. But if you can get a copy of that issue, you might gather more from it than me.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by alfa1

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.


Would you rather have a Nobel prize, or an endless supply financing?

Yeah, because as soon as you get the Nobel prize and become one of the most esteemed scientists in your field BAM! the funding dries up!



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Interesting article! I remember something about quasars emitting superluminal particles due to the properties of the "jets" that they create?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


How about a link to a list of peer reviewed papers?
Link
Those are on electricity in space.
Plasma Cosmology
That one has peer reviewed papers on Plasma Cosmology in the references section.

These were just with a quick google search. I'm sure if you really practice hard, you can develop the skills to seek out more papers.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I guess you are right. It's the goal of every GR/SR scientist to get a Nobel prize. Nobody is in it for the money, it's all about the prize that you have about as good a chance at winning as the lottery. This is not even a real argument.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I guess you are right. It's the goal of every GR/SR scientist to get a Nobel prize. Nobody is in it for the money, it's all about the prize that you have about as good a chance at winning as the lottery. This is not even a real argument.

And neither is "they're only in it for the money".



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


How about a link to a list of peer reviewed papers?
Link
Those are on electricity in space.
Plasma Cosmology
That one has peer reviewed papers on Plasma Cosmology in the references section.

These were just with a quick google search. I'm sure if you really practice hard, you can develop the skills to seek out more papers.


I don't even have to go to those links to tell you that the concept of how they were supposidly reviewed is highly suspect just from the simple fact that they exist on PU/EU specifically named domains.

However, if you click the link for the EU site it specifically states at the very top:


There are many peer reviewed papers on electricity (electric fields and electric currents) in space. They do not necessarily cover aspects of the "Electric Universe" theories.


So, even if these are accurately peer-reviewed (which is doubtful) they are just general papers about electric charges in space. Just because they also are listed on an EU specific website does not mean anything in regards to the 'bigger picture' that this psuedoscience wishes to convey.

The link for the PU site starts with a wiki for what PU is and then follows with links for specific papers...a lot of which appear to just be about plasma in general (which plasma is a normal high-energy state of matter). I see no notes from or lists of who has refereed the articles so stating they are properly peer reviewed is not really possible.


Originally posted by PplVSNWO
These were just with a quick google search. I'm sure if you really practice hard, you can develop the skills to seek out more papers.


I would suggest that finger be pointed in the other direction. The GR meanies give a rather unbiased summary for the history of PU for the masses - Plasma Cosmology



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I guess you are right. It's the goal of every GR/SR scientist to get a Nobel prize. Nobody is in it for the money, it's all about the prize that you have about as good a chance at winning as the lottery. This is not even a real argument.


And who do you think is more-likely to not only get the Nobel Prize, but also tons of money for research? The guy that totes the existing line (as you put it) or the guy that proves them all wrong?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


Well the money should be going to those that are making observations and constructing theories and models that are based upon scientific experimentation and replicating the theories. But that is not what happens in the real world, most of the money in the real world gets dumped into the people's lap that toe the standard models.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


And I suppose you have poof of these claims? Why would "dumped into the people's lap that toe the standard models"? What possible purpose would this serve, exactly;y?
edit on 11-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join