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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


I thought so, you aren't even going to read the papers because they are on a site you don't agree with. If the papers are peer reviewed, but it's dubious process. That doesn't say much for your whole peer review paper argument.
It also seems you want people to ignore all the evidence for electricity in space, just because none of those papers have a complete theory to inner workings of the whole known and unknown universe.




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


I thought so, you aren't even going to read the papers because they are on a site you don't agree with. If the papers are peer reviewed, but it's dubious process. That doesn't say much for your whole peer review paper argument.
It also seems you want people to ignore all the evidence for electricity in space, just because none of those papers have a complete theory to inner workings of the whole known and unknown universe.


That's not really what I had said. Me reading the papers themselves would serve little purpose since I'm not a scientist that would be able to look at a paper to dispute or confirm the findings contained therein. However, it is rather a simple matter to understand how properly reviewed papers are conveyed and published. The simplest tell is that they would be published on a general scientific forum for review rather than on an obviously biased website.

I never made any statement regarding electricity in space other than to state that a good few of the papers listed were, by the disclaimer on the site, just regarding the general concept that there are electric charges found in space. This is a far cry from the EU theory which states things as ludicris as cometary tails being generated, not by the heating of ices on the surface due to proximity of the sun, but due to an electrical current.

So I'm not really understanding where you got any notion of my personal view to state something as specific as me wanting to "ignore all the evidence for electricity in space just because none of those papers have a complete theory to inner workings of the whole known and unknown universe."

For one, no theory currently does that nor could it. They can make predictions based on the current theory for various phenomenon: Hawking radiation was predicted and has had some confirmation since...Higgs Boson for another which is still searching, though they may have found some proof for its existance. If it's unkown, then it's unknown...once you have a theory that can cover the unknown...then it's pretty much no longer unknown.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
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.


The problem here is that they have to have concrete proof of their claims. They aren't just going to toss money at any potential crackpot or we'd all be scientists. Now as far as who 'they' are that are going to be giving out all this money, I can only speculate. Plus it's a new idea for me to think of someone becoming a scientist for the money



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


They aren't published on a biased website, the website only contains links or references to the original papers. I can see that you ignore the peer reviewed and experimentally proven evidence based upon faith that the official models are correct(or will be as soon as somebody finds some more adjustements)

What about my other gripes? Like where scientists made up dark matter, dark energy/flows, blackholes, magnetic reconnection and other bogus theories to try and make the GR/SR based theories fit? Can you not see how they are nothing more than creative mathematics that are a place holder in an otherwise failed model?
EU and Plasma Physics proponents don't call it "mathemagic" for nothing.

Edit: have you even given an analysis of the findings in the OP? Or did you just jump in hear to defend Einstein and his followers or perhaps just attack anyone that goes against the grain?
edit on 11-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dashdragon

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
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.


The problem here is that they have to have concrete proof of their claims. They aren't just going to toss money at any potential crackpot or we'd all be scientists. Now as far as who 'they' are that are going to be giving out all this money, I can only speculate. Plus it's a new idea for me to think of someone becoming a scientist for the money

.
Like the concrete proof for infinite density point singularities? Haha. Most observations of spaced electricity and plasma have been proven in a lab. Just look into Birkeland currents and behaviour of plasma and how it can be scaled across large magnetudes to be verified here on earth. The last time the scientists tried to verify their SR/GR based models, their "black hole" went "missing".



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
They aren't published on a biased website, the website only contains links or references to the original papers. I can see that you ignore the peer reviewed and experimentally proven evidence based upon faith that the official models are correct(or will be as soon as somebody finds some more adjustements)


The links you sent me to are contained on quite obviously biased websites and the paper I did go to check on was on IEEE, which I cannot even view without a membership to IEEE.


Originally posted by PplVSNWO
What about my other gripes? Like where scientists made up dark matter, dark energy/flows, blackholes, magnetic reconnection and other bogus theories to try and make the GR/SR based theories fit? Can you not see how they are nothing more than creative mathematics that are a place holder in an otherwise failed model?
EU and Plasma Physics proponents don't call it "mathemagic" for nothing.


Plasma Physics is a far cry from the PU model. Most proponents for the complete PU model cannot provide the math for the physics of plasma itself. That is were the science falls flat for most when it is reviewed because without mathimatical proofs to test and confirm, it's all just meaningless talk.

See Here

Also, I would like to have an explanation as to how GR is a failed model with experimental models prove it is by far the most accurate model of the universe we have to go by? Which doesn't mean it's "right", just that it's the "most right" Also, if you had read, I did address your comments about dark matter and black holes, though the other items you mentioned were not mentioned before.

Black holes, while not directly observable, are a proven stellar object found throughout the universe with some having a mass that is a billion or more times the mass of the sun. They are called 'black' because light cannot escape its pull and therefore are not possible to be seen directly though we can observe their x-ray emissions and accretion disks.

Dark matter is a term used in regards to the fact that the calculated mass of the universe is not the same as the mass of the universe we can see. It's a "We don't know yet" statement. So I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here. GR overall is wrong because they admit there is an aspect they don't have figured out yet?

The simple 'fact' is that the accepted model/theory is the one that best fits observation and is able to reproduce phenomenon we observe in the universe. It does not mean it is the final theory, or that it's a fact. Given our place in the cosmos, there are always going to be unknowns...it's unavoidable. We can't observe how the universe was created, nor will we be able to observe how it ends. It may turn out that in the future we find that GR is completely wrong, but more-likely that it will have simply evolved into something more. All we can go by is what is the best proven and usable theory.


Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Edit: have you even given an analysis of the findings in the OP? Or did you just jump in hear to defend Einstein and his followers or perhaps just attack anyone that goes against the grain?
edit on 11-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)


Actually, that would be you with the way you jumped on an article that could be in any way shape or form twisted for your own agenda. Just because I chose to respond to you, which lead to a conversation, does not mean there is a conspiracy. Unfortunately the nature of ATS would lead to the possibility of many who would easily be convinced without real proof, which is no doubt why you're here. (oops, I made an assumption without proof...my apologies)
edit on 11-5-2011 by Dashdragon because: fixed link



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by Dashdragon

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
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.


The problem here is that they have to have concrete proof of their claims. They aren't just going to toss money at any potential crackpot or we'd all be scientists. Now as far as who 'they' are that are going to be giving out all this money, I can only speculate. Plus it's a new idea for me to think of someone becoming a scientist for the money

.
Like the concrete proof for infinite density point singularities? Haha. Most observations of spaced electricity and plasma have been proven in a lab. Just look into Birkeland currents and behaviour of plasma and how it can be scaled across large magnetudes to be verified here on earth. The last time the scientists tried to verify their SR/GR based models, their "black hole" went "missing".


The best thing I can direct you to in regards to that, which is you once again talking about a Black Hole (a singularity with infinite density and zero volume) is this:


This is indeed difficult to grasp. Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume. You might check out the web site for further information on black holes and singularities:antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

edit on 11-5-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


Man, for someone whom can't verify the science in peer reviewed papers, you sure talk like you understand the physics behind the models you cling too.
"Black holes" are far from proven. In fact, they can't be proven, observed or measured.
Just read this article and it points out glaring inconsistancies associated with "black hole" science.
The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy
particularly the yellowed text.
An example:

General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. All claims for black hole interactions are invalid.

The mathematical "proof" that black holes were possible only even allowed for one to exist in the entire universe.

Haha, I also like how your little quote above refers to "space-time" as if it exists. Time is a measurement, not a physical property. Space, is simply space. If space were empty, it would be nothing.
edit on 11-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
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.


if you are correct we need to get a copy of that paper
i do hope to stimulate discusion not misunderstand are confuse the topic
how can SR be "not followed" for the case of quasars?

surly SR is a constant when and were ever an object is
and time travels slower the further away you get
so how can the light not shifted to red and the pulses not slow down and still work will SR

thanks for you ideas
i should try to get the original paper

xploder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


Man, for someone whom can't verify the science in peer reviewed papers, you sure talk like you understand the physics behind the models you cling too.


Then I imagine it should be all the easier to just blow me out of the water then shouldn't it? The fact is, to do that, you would have to start posting some mathematical proof to what you claim that I cannot easily argue against, which you cannot do.


Originally posted by PplVSNWO
"Black holes" are far from proven. In fact, they can't be proven, observed or measured.
Just read this article and it points out glaring inconsistancies associated with "black hole" science.
The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy
particularly the yellowed text.
An example:

General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. All claims for black hole interactions are invalid.

The mathematical "proof" that black holes were possible only even allowed for one to exist in the entire universe.


They have been proven and they have been measured. They can be measured by the exact same methods we use to measure the mass of every other heavenly body that has something gravitationally bound to it. The complete nature of the beast is what we still do not fully understand, and they are evolving that part of the theory as they learn more about them.

I would think another simple wiki link is in order. Black Holes


Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Haha, I also like how your little quote above refers to "space-time" as if it exists. Time is a measurement, not a physical property. Space, is simply space. If space were empty, it would be nothing.
edit on 11-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)


Without time in a universe with 3 spatial dimensions, X, Y, and Z are meaningless. If you cannot tell me WHEN an object was at X, Y, and Z, then you cannot even come close to telling me anything about the object to begin with. Quite obviously spacetime exists as:


In physics, spacetime (or space–time, space time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum


Currently I am sitting at my desk...in another hour and a half, I will be in my car...a futher thirty minutes I will be home. That's not even a mathematical model, but is a demonstration of the definition of spacetime. Now...I am here...then I will be there...and later I will be elsewhere.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
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?


my pet theory is an optical refraction model due to relitivistic AND density refraction this could account for some of the inconsistencies we see
but i am open to other ideas or explinations

i am a really big supporter of density refractivity and "local" lensing
so i tend to think of everything outside our solar system as being "lensed"
but i am open to all ideas at this point

if you want to read my thread on density lensing
a universe full of lens shaped bubbles,,,,.......is the name and its here on ats

xploder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
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.


if you are correct we need to get a copy of that paper
i do hope to stimulate discusion not misunderstand are confuse the topic
how can SR be "not followed" for the case of quasars?

surly SR is a constant when and were ever an object is
and time travels slower the further away you get
so how can the light not shifted to red and the pulses not slow down and still work will SR

thanks for you ideas
i should try to get the original paper

xploder


That would probably help, because the most I can find is that Quasars do show drastically different red shifts, which is the opposite of what this appears to be saying.


All observed quasar spectra have redshifts between 0.056 and 6.5. Applying Hubble's law to these redshifts, it can be shown that they are between 600 million[9] and 28 billion light-years away (in terms of proper distance).


But I will submit that I may easily be missing something or just misread what they said.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:25 PM
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.


Skimming through the first section of papers entitled "General electricity in space", the most recent paper is from 1996. That makes the most recent paper over 15 years old. The second most recent paper is 21 years old, the third and fourth over 23 years old, then 34 years old, then 44 years old and finally 56 years old(!!!). Hardly breaming with cutting edge science. Not only that but the papers in question at most have a handful of citations each. Furthermore, 3 out of 7 papers are written by the same author, 3 out of 7 by another author and the final one by another author. That's 3 authors (of which 2 authors are responsible for the vast majority of the work) writing over a span of 40 years with a 15 year gap from the most recent paper to the current date. Not only is it far from cutting edge science but it's about as fringe as you could get. To tout this as conclusive evidence of anything when you ignore the thousands of papers, including cutting edge research, on the Standard Model is ludicrous.

The rest of the papers in the following sections do not at face value explicitly refer to the electric universe hypothesis. However, you are free to give me a breakdown of the papers in question, pointing out the specific references to the electric universe and their rebuttal of the Standard Model.
edit on 11-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Black holes exist and you are wrong. Nothing more needs to be said.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

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.


Skimming through the first section of papers entitled "General electricity in space", the most recent paper is from 1996. That makes the most recent paper over 15 years old. The second most recent paper is 21 years old, the third and fourth over 23 years old, then 34 years old, then 44 years old and finally 56 years old(!!!). Hardly breaming with cutting edge science. Not only that but the papers in question at most have a handful of citations each. Furthermore, 3 out of 7 papers are written by the same author, 3 out of 7 by another author and the final one by another author. That's 3 authors (of which 2 authors are responsible for the vast majority of the work) writing over a span of 40 years with a 15 year gap from the most recent paper to the current date. Not only is it far from cutting edge science but it's about as fringe as you could get. To tout this as conclusive evidence of anything when you ignore the thousands of papers, including cutting edge research, on the Standard Model is ludicrous.

The rest of the papers in the following sections do not at face value explicitly refer to the electric universe hypothesis. However, you are free to give me a breakdown of the papers in question, pointing out the specific references to the electric universe and their rebuttal of the Standard Model.
edit on 11-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


Thanks for catching that John...

I had overlooked the dates when I skimmed through them.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


So you are just going to accept his "debunking"? Really? As if the age of the paper somehow disproves the content?
I wasn't aware that the laws of physics(the real laws, not the understanding of them) changed over time. What's interesting is that plasma cosmologist and eu theorists made predications on the workings of the universe based upon the findings of this non-state-of-the-art theories that are only now being observed.
What is mere supporting observations for EU theories, turns out to be a stick in the spokes of your modern state-of-the-art science that results in more adjustments to there models and understandings. Much like the science in the article this thread is about.
By the way, there have been peer reviewed papers related to EU recently. I know there were at least two in 2008(oh, but wait, that's way too outdated to be of an relevence.)

The workings of the universe doesn't change, only our understanding(for the better, or worse).



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
i think i understand now why the "two camps" are not making ground
there seems to be a divide or division in the science comunity

why cant we debate the science and not how the science is presented
i understand the value of a peer reveiwed process to sort the weat from the chaff,

i would love to see all sides of the debate raging in this thread sit down and
use the difference of approach each group has to TEAM UP and
instead of talking in absolutes,
start a dialog where each issue is expressed from each veiw point
and we may find corrolations between different ways of veiwing the same thing


xploder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
As if the age of the paper somehow disproves the content?

Actually, the age says a lot. There's a lot of papers that were published that have since been shown to not agree with more recent observations. As such, their exploration stops at a dead end. So yes, the lack of recent publications says a lot.



I wasn't aware that the laws of physics(the real laws, not the understanding of them) changed over time.

What specifically are you referring to? The papers in questions are not "laws of physics" as you say but interpretations of observed phenomenon and thus are subject to change as more evidence comes to light.


What's interesting is that plasma cosmologist and eu theorists made predications on the workings of the universe based upon the findings of this non-state-of-the-art theories that are only now being observed.


a) What are the testable predictions that the EU hypothesis makes?
b) What observations does the EU hypothesis explain that the standard model cannot?
c) Building on b), what specifically does the EU hypothesis add to the understanding of the relevant fields of science?


What is mere supporting observations for EU theories, turns out to be a stick in the spokes of your modern state-of-the-art science that results in more adjustments to there models and understandings.

What observations are these (see above)?


Much like the science in the article this thread is about.

See above.


By the way, there have been peer reviewed papers related to EU recently. I know there were at least two in 2008(oh, but wait, that's way too outdated to be of an relevence.)

What papers are these, and what specifically do they state that supports the EU hypothesis and refutes the standard model?


The workings of the universe doesn't change, only our understanding(for the better, or worse).

Quite, but if out understanding does not match with observation then our understanding is clearly wrong.

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

What is your academic training? I ask because if someone were to hold a position within my field that was contrary to current thinking, yet they had no relevant training I would find it most peculiar. Why someone would hold a position when they do not the expertise to correctly asses and weigh up the various conflicting positions is both puzzling and foolish. I find it very strange how people who have no training in astrophysics/cosmology/physics/etc. can hold such strong positions when the overwhelming majority of highly trained scientists do not support the position they champion. A physicist's opinion in my field of expertise is about as relevant as my opinion (or that of a layman) in the theirs, i.e. just another uninformed opinion. This is why my question of academic training is of relevance.
edit on 11-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
ok so as a lensing fan i will start
the quasar all seem to be co-ordinated

Note that Mike Hawkins compared light patterns from quasars located 6 billion and 10 billion light years away and when discovered that when the light signatures from both were compared they were exactly the same.


so is there an underlying energy feild that powers all these objects
ie if all are "pulsing" at the same time (distence adjusted)
then is that proof of a commonality of something (anything)

could it be a common electrical energy source EU
could it have something to do with expansion or relitivity
could it be lensing phenomonon

and please say why and how you support you veiwpoint from within clasical boundries
(that way we are all using the same language) to discuss the effects as follows


10 divided into 6 is 0.6 close to 0.618033989

He discovered those exact patterns from 900 quasars over a 28 year period.



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.

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.


from the link in the op

example
could all quasars acually be reflections of just one pulsing object reflected and refracted numerous times into different "apparent positions" refrence -up to 20% of the high red shifted galaies may be lensed galaxys NASA release from a previous thread here on ats

the idea stems from heliospherical and galaxy density optics with SR and reflectivity from curved surfaces

would the EU members like to try within the context of their understanding?
would the non EU or Plasma Universe members like to try an explination within their understanding?

xploder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

We show that gravitational lensing by foreground galaxies will lead to a higher number of galaxies to be counted at redshifts z>8-10. This number may be boosted significantly, by as much as an order of magnitude. If there existed only three galaxies above the detection threshold at redshifts z>10 in the Hubble field-of-view without the presence of lensing, the bias from gravitational lensing may make as many as 10-30 of them visible in the Hubble images. In this sense, the very distant universe is like a house of mirrors that you visit at the State Fair — there may be fewer direct lines-of-sight to a very distant object, and their images may reach us more often via a gravitationally-bent path. What you see is not what you’ve got!”


www.abovetopsecret.com...

so if there are a massive amount of lenses could there be massive amounts of reflection and refraction allowing one object to be viewed as "reflections" from the surface of these lenses?

xploder




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join