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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
example of EU

ok so if there is o form of energy that could power ever quasar with reqular timing an electrical source that influenced the star into its "pulsing" frequency
large amounts of energy run in "filiments" through space,
these filiments induce energy into our local galaxy "bubble"
as they transit through the galaxy they induce energy in a cycle into everything in the galaxy
in this way if the filimentary energy was to "flux" or pulse the ambient energy would also carry this information
to the quasars, because quasars are highly energetic they are disturbed more by the fluctuation of the induced energy.

in this way all pulsars can be seen to be timed

reference video series the electric universe as previously threaded here on ats(search)

xploder




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I am not a physicist, but a simple logic check can tell us that we simply don't know what is causing the phenomenon.

It certainly isn't gravitational distortion that's causing it, because there can't be black holes in the path of EVERY observed quasar.

My guess is that the nature of the waves emitted by the quasars is special. Perhaps it is an electromagnetic signal of such nature that it can travel faster than light.

Perhaps quasars are local objects.

EDIT:

Could it be that the "light" from quasars is superconductive? some kind of superconductive energy bypasses the speed of light limit.

Could it be that the "light" from quasars has its own spacetime? perhaps quasars, being the most energetic objects in the universe, distort the universe around them so much that they form a kind of wormhole around them, which allows the light to travel much faster than the usual.


edit on 11-5-2011 by masterp because:



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


star
i like the thinking

a new state of light
superconductivity in the light state

wow thats an interesting idea


xploder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
this bit is very interesting to me

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong. Or, quasars may not be located at the distances indicated by their redshifts, although this suggestion has previously been discredited. Although these explanations are controversial, Hawkins plans to continue investigating the quasar mystery, and maybe solve a few other problems along the way.


from the link in the op

so are the authors really suggesting that red shift from quasars could not be a reliable measure of the distence?
does this not put other objects red shifted distence into question?
or is it just radio sources that the red shift is inacurite

xploder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I disagree with that, just because one of the most mysterious, energetic objects in the entire universe does not conform to the laws of physics does not necessarily mean that the Big Bang Theory is wrong and that the universe is not expanding. Quasars probably just have a lot going on that we do not understand.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


well you could be correct so star for that
i think the speculation that the universe is expanding comes from redshifted type 1A supernova
and the tools as
luminosity/size by redshifted amount
in a size luminosity diagram
super nova were seen to "age" more slowly the further away from us we looked,
the reason for this was "expansion" and a need to explain the anomoly the big bang
but if either the luminosity or redshifted amount was incorrect we would no longer have one of the tools (redshift) to realiable measure distence.

the behavour described makes a paradox
red shift light = distence
and light from distent sources should be streached out proportional to the expansion but that also means the pulses should be also streached and they are not in this case.

the universe cannot be see to be expanding and not expanding at the same time,

so this does indeed put the theory of the big bang into question
because the type 1A nova measurements are now being challanged
and this was the source for the expansion theory which in turn created the big bang theory

and this information is in direct conflict of distence with expansion
or cosmological expansion

xplodder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
You guys know that "Redshift" can be easily explained by a *NON-ABSOLUTE* velocity for c, according to different frames of reference... Right?

As in, the wave passes slower, and thus, from our "Relative" perspective, it would have a slower frequency... and energy.

It would also close some pretty nasty causality problems in the rest of physics...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I do think I answered your question about the redshift earlier as far as my theory.
I'm with the camp that doesn't go along with the accepted belief that redshift indicates distance. They should stick with a method that can be verified to give reasonably accurate means for determining distance.
What does cause the red shift then?
Perhaps the age of the hydrogen atoms can be a factor.(didn't Arp theorize this, as galaxies being "born" from quasars have high redshift but then settle down as they age?)
Maybe your refraction theory is correct. How is light affected when travelling through electrical fields, plasmas, charged particles, pockets of ice crystals etc..?
Does different types of electrical current and/or different voltages effect the wavelength?

Edit:
Found a model Arp and others came with on red shift.
Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies
Haven't read it, but the abstract sounds pretty interesting. I will give it a go when I have some free time.
edit on 12-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)


Most importantly, it is found that when high redshift quasars are linearly paired across a
galaxy that their intrinsic redshift can be measured directly as it splits into two oppositely directed components. The intrinsic redshift of the ejected quasars falls uncannily close to the predicted Karlsson peaks - within §:01. It is argued that data going back to 1968 confirm that quasars are ejected and evolve in luminosity and redshift into normal galaxies which lie on or near the classic Hubble relation.

Sorry, some of the characters don't copy over well.

edit on 12-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
there is an interesting picture i found that shows an image that could visually represent the reflected and refracted theory that one source could be refracted into various "appairent" locations depending on the refraction properties of the local lenses.




image for artistic impression only
edit add link to source
source

xploder


edit on 12-5-2011 by XPLodER because: add link to site



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Not a physicist or anything... But this is my loose observation. Seems the universe has the the speed of light as a clamped limit of sorts. But I think within a given frame of reference, it's still possible to go faster than light. What happens is that time itself changes rate of progression so that an object going faster than light tops out at light speed relative to the rest of the observable universe. This type of time dilation has the effect that changes the energy potential of whatever is being observed. From the particle's point of view it's going super-luminal. (Everything else slows down and distances become much shorter.) From our point of view, the particle can only go light speed but it has a lot more energy stored within in it.

Call it crazy, but the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant. And it's not constant because the rate at which time itself progresses isn't constant throughout the universe. It's all relative to the gravitational fields which it passes through, and this is why gravitational lensing is possible. The speed of light as we're measuring it is based on the localized density of space itself. No matter where you go it would look the same when doing the experiment that measures the speed of light. However if you could take a cesium atom clock to another star system, camp out for a year, and come back... That clock would not match the time of an identical clock left here on earth. Because the fact that the time-rate variable is different in two different star systems (or under the influence of any differing localized gravitational fields), it would indicate that your "speed of light" constants that appear the same in the different star-systems would actually be different by that same amount. (This is because time is used as a measurement when doing that "light-speed" measuring experiment. And since time-progression is a localized variable based on the cesium clock experiment... The rest should be obvious. Einstein had something right with relativity, but others failed to fully extrapolate.)

Seems intuitive enough. But my guess is that most astrophysicists would hate the mess that something that simple would make. (Think of the big "re-do" required! Some parts of the universe would be older or newer, but no longer simply based on distance outward as we observe it. What a mess. And how broken the "measuring stick" just might be?) This quasar phenomena might be indicative of something like this being overlooked.

It's all cool though. Science is about learning new things.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pauljs75
 


im going to add your suggestion to the list,
you have explained your point of veiw very nicely

thanks for the considered answer and for the logical reasoning
i like the idea that the universe is less understood than we think it is because
that means there are alot of things that we still have to study.

your point about time being "relitive" to the observable position is correct
and i think in a strange way you are right that the passage of time would effect the constant if one of the variables was to change dependant on location, or time frame reference.

ps
some things that would cause a massive rethink in science is always a good opertunity
for people to find themselves interested in something new or unsolved.
if there was to be a major "re working" im sure it would draw freash attension
to the sciences which is always a good thing


your insights are very much welcomed
thank you very much
xploder



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I'm not convinced of your refraction theory. In that Arp paper I liked in my last post, he says:

There are three kinds of evidence for the existence of non-velocity redshifts:

1) Statistical association of objects having much different redshifts. (See e.g. analysis by C. Fulton
(Fulton & Arp 2009) of the 2dF deepfield, and Burbidge & Napier (2009).)

2) Interaction between objects of different redshift (including high redshifts aligned across active galaxy nuclei).

3) Quasars occurring preferentially at certain specific redshifts.

The latter precludes redshifts caused by recessional velocity because it would require matter distributed
in shells and receding velocities in discrete steps.


Because of #2, it would be very unlikely to for this to occur if refraction was the blame. How could two objects so far away from the observation point, yet so close to each other, pass through different refracting media causing the observation of red shift?
Further, even if refraction could cause red shift(I'm not convinced that it does), how would it cause even redshift across all associated photons?

I'm sticking with different energy levels of the source, being mainly responsible for observed red shift until experimentally proven otherwise.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 



Because of #2, it would be very unlikely to for this to occur if refraction was the blame. How could two objects so far away from the observation point, yet so close to each other, pass through different refracting media causing the observation of red shift?
Further, even if refraction could cause red shift(I'm not convinced that it does), how would it cause even redshift across all associated photons?

I'm sticking with different energy levels of the source, being mainly responsible for observed red shift until experimentally proven otherwise.


"theory" follows (not confirmed)

it would be my contention that light is shifted at the boundry of the refractive material,
the reflected image would not cross the boundry, instead it would be reflected by it.
as the light rays refract of the lensing material it must change direction (reflection)
the process of reflection could account for some of the red shifted properties of the observed reflected image,
the more times the image is reflected, the higher the amount of difused light "scattered" at each reflection
the higher the red shift.

in this way objects such as quasars can "look" to be much further away than their observable position,
while being reflected into an observable position in front of the host galaxy.

the other optical phenomonon is a boundry transition, i would asert that there is a cost of transition into the lensing media, that depending of angle of incidence light would be refracted at different rates.
there would be a cost of transition like conservation of energy laws,
some of the energy required to transition the lensing material would be "modulated" by the boundry into the new medium density.

the effect to look for would be sub mm or infra red light directly outside the transition boundry.
so if the transition boundry was very dense compaired to the interstella medium,
the effects of redshift would be amplifyed as a larger transition cost would require more "modulation" and create stronger optical effects.

high energy cosmic rays are deflected by our astrosphere, yet lower energy light travels through the boundry,
my question would be what is the effect of this boundry and could it optically "factor" with the quasars lens to produce a space based telescope?

the stronger the gravatational feild and the smaller the aera the higher the lensing potential
for this "space based telescope" to interact "focally" with

so in conclusion
it is my position that the stronger the gravatational feild for any given area
the larger the lensing potential and the greater the optical potential for lensing is,
the higer the red shift.

this predisposes that the helo-sphere and galaxy act like a lenset to focally interact with the "lensing" potential of distent objects

please remeber the refracted position of high red shift quasars is only a theory
and i have no clue if the reflection hypothis is correct

but we do know the larger the gravatational influence the higher the lensing potential,
i wounder if red shift has more to do with focal interaction of lensing potential than velocity.

dont get me wrong here, im not saying that nothing is moving, or that some redshift could be due to resetional velocity. i am saying we are looking through a gravatational potential lense at a gravatational potential lense,
and red shift could be an indication of focal interaction of lesets not a direct velocity or cosmological expansion.

in this way the larger the potential gravity lens the higher the red shift is observed

theory only

xploder



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


a seconary thought not connected to the last post
if AGN have increased lensing potential
then we could be seeing a gravatationally lensed image from far behind the galaxy acting like a lens the nuclus potential gravatational lense could "lens" objects hidden behind the galaxy onto the outter surface of the host galaxy. which is in direct oposition of the refracted thesis
lol

xploder



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
lol, you guys on this thread just made me realize that my cosmology is so far out of date that I must get some new cosmology textbooks, lol. Even though I studied astronomy 20 years ago, I almost have no clue what you are talking about. I know about cepheids, quasars and supernova's, but from thereon you lost me. Any good pointers for me, or should I just google or Wiki?

lol, just Wiki'ed Electric Universe and found out it is a band, but I guess that is NOT the EU that you guys are talking about....
edit on 16/5/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


You'd have to google it with 'theory' attached I think to get that particular wiki page. Doesn't tell you much about it except for the generalities and such, but should clue you in on what the main idea is.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604
lol, you guys on this thread just made me realize that my cosmology is so far out of date that I must get some new cosmology textbooks, lol. Even though I studied astronomy 20 years ago, I almost have no clue what you are talking about. I know about cepheids, quasars and supernova's, but from thereon you lost me. Any good pointers for me, or should I just google or Wiki?

lol, just Wiki'ed Electric Universe and found out it is a band, but I guess that is NOT the EU that you guys are talking about....
edit on 16/5/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)


the observations i have made on gravatational lensing can be read in my thread here
ATS thread showing the heliosphere "bubble" and galaxy "bubble" combine to form lenses

individual galaxies are now described as lensing objects from behind them and stars are lenses inside these lensing galaxies.

the two lenses (helio and galaxy) combine with gravity to create a "lenset"
this lenset is optically interacting with the observed gravity lensing galaxy to create a space based telescope
this telescope effect can optically effect observations of other objects outside our galaxy.

the linked thread goes into detail


xpolder
ps the galaxy lensing has been proven with observations
and the desity difference between the helio and galaxy mediums add a micro lense to the equation
edit on 16-5-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by Hellhound604
lol, you guys on this thread just made me realize that my cosmology is so far out of date that I must get some new cosmology textbooks, lol. Even though I studied astronomy 20 years ago, I almost have no clue what you are talking about. I know about cepheids, quasars and supernova's, but from thereon you lost me. Any good pointers for me, or should I just google or Wiki?

lol, just Wiki'ed Electric Universe and found out it is a band, but I guess that is NOT the EU that you guys are talking about....
edit on 16/5/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)


the observations i have made on gravatational lensing can be read in my thread here
ATS thread showing the heliosphere "bubble" and galaxy "bubble" combine to form lenses

individual galaxies are now described as lensing objects from behind them and stars are lenses inside these lensing galaxies.

the two lenses (helio and galaxy) combine with gravity to create a "lenset"
this lenset is optically interacting with the observed gravity lensing galaxy to create a space based telescope
this telescope effect can optically effect observations of other objects outside our galaxy.

the linked thread goes into detail


xpolder
ps the galaxy lensing has been proven with observations
and the desity difference between the helio and galaxy mediums add a micro lense to the equation
edit on 16-5-2011 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)


lol, at least I still know what gravitational lenses are, but I guess even there my knowledge is so far out of date, that I will definitely read up more on it
edit on 16/5/2011 by Hellhound604 because: grrr ... replied within the quote



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


So, you are saying that the entirety of each quasar is passing through refractive media equally on it's way to our position, but that local(to the quasar) galaxies do not pass through the same "stuff"?
This is a highly unprobable scenario to occur for the many examples of galaxies and quasars interacting, yet show different red shifts.

And on the "gravitational lensing", I have never seen anything that proves any examples used as such, are really lenses to begin with, let alone "gravitational lenses".
Gravitational Lensing or Death of a Theory?
And an interesting quote from that article:

Item: Gravitational lensing is solely a phenomenon of mass, but galaxies are made of plasma. The primary quality of plasma is charge—electricity—and the effects of electricity overshadow the effects of mass 99 to 1. Energetic phenomena that require 96% dark matter, dark energy and black holes to power with mass require only 4% plasma—the quantity actually observed.


Gravitational Lensing Misused Again

The ring in this image, at one arc-second diameter, seems far too large to be a lensing effect. More plausibly this image shows all of the features of the "planetary nebula effect" viewed end-on. The electrical discharge nature of planetary nebulae was argued by Dr. Charles Bruce, FRAS, more than 50 years ago. It is a simple plasma phenomenon that is scalable from the laboratory to galactic proportions.

Plasma astronomers note that the ring is composed of bright spots that seem to be roughly paired and associated with filamentary "spokes" that have the so-called "foreground" galaxy as their hub. This is the typical appearance of a "plasma focus" discharge viewed along the axis. Furthermore, such discharges usually begin with 56 filaments and evolve into 28. Although it's difficult to count the spots in this ring, there could very well be 28.


Gravitational Lensing Used As Excuse Again

The caption to this image that appeared in the Astronomy Picture of the Day admitted: “The power of this enormous gravitational lens depends on its mass, but the visible matter, in the form of the cluster's yellowish galaxies, only accounts for about one percent of the mass needed to make the observed bluish arcing images of background galaxies. In fact, most of the gravitational mass required to warp space enough to explain this cosmic scale lensing is in the form of still mysterious dark matter.”


Abell Clusters: Would You Like Them Here or There?


Many clusters show “radial arcs,” a bit of data that contradicts gravitational lensing theory but which theorists pass over as being “not fully understood.” Ring currents connected to the central electrode by a radial current are expected in plasma discharges. Examples range from the Dogleg Galaxy (NGC 1097) to the flux tube connecting Jupiter and the plasma torus (read: ring current) in which the satellite Io orbits.

Not only are the clusters small and nearby, their galactic forms may not be differentiated into stars: Whether the spiral morphology of interacting Birkeland currents breaks up into smaller pinches depends on the electrical properties of the discharge.

The circular morphology of this cluster is likely due to our viewing it along its axis. The Birkeland current (also called a field-aligned current) in which it is pinched probably has an hourglass shape. We see the concentric arcs and radial alignments because we are looking “into the funnel.” From the side, it would appear more like its smaller-scale cousin, the planetary nebula. The Bullet Cluster probably shows us the side view.

Needless to say, the x-rays are not emitted by “hot gas” but by plasma, that is by electrically accelerated electrons that spiral in the polar magnetic field (hence the “field aligned current”) and emit synchrotron radiation. The plasma may or may not be “hot,” that is, contain particles that randomly collide.

In either case, Abell 1689 is near, dim, not massive, and not merging.


Also, lets not forget The Einstein Cross.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


the quasar "timing of the pulsas" cannot be explained by refractive reflections as you have pointed out the time to us for each pulse shows a different "distence" to us.

as for gravatational lensing,
i can show acual proof of lensing



this is different to einsteins strong gravatational lensing (SGL)
the density and optical refractivity combined with gravity create a density lense (DL)




so the density/refractivity of the inter galactic medium combined with gravity act like a density lens (DL)




this is different to the mass of an object "curving" an image from behind it to be obseverable by (SL)

in this instence the "individual" galaxy gravatationally and density factor into each other to form an optical "lens" that as light travels through, (not around as in SL).

think magnifying lense comprised of optical media and gravity factoring the effects of each other to form a giant lens in space.

then if we add a lens inside the "lensed galaxy" (DL) like the one around our star,(ML)

we have an optical density lensing medium in a gravatational feild that itself creates a lens,
like lenses inside lenses (ML)

then we have a phenomonon i have called Gravatational Microscoping (GM)
this is where image size, luminosity and flux can be affected by (DL) and optics






so einsteins rings or einsteins cross is dependant on a number of factors
the primary consideration is the angle of incidence to the lens surface.




the second consideration is the (DL) refractivity, the higher the refractivity = the more images in the outer ring "artifacts"

which means our helio sphere is a lens in the galaxy medium lens and the two lenses "optically' factor each others effects with gravity and we are observing the universe throught a gravity lenset or (DL) over (ML)




then we get to how to find these gravatationally lensed sources?
the signature to look for is sub mm or infra red light directly outside the lens surface



i realize this is new information to most people and will answer any questions you have

links
infra red detection of (DL)
www.sciencedaily.com...

NASA release of gravatational lensing
www.sciencedaily.com...

a universe full of lens shaped bubbles
bubble universe




xploder



edit on 18-5-2011 by XPLodER because: add more info



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join