Are Quasars Really THAT Far Away?

Are Quasars Really THAT Far Away?

The red shifts of light from quasars are so large, it is commonly
believed that quasars are a great distance away. Yet some vary in light
output within a very short time. These quasars must be small enough
that the variations can occur across the quasar without breaking the
speed of light, yet produce enough luminous energy that they can still
be seen from that great a distance. A bit of a stretch of the laws of
physics. Another problem with this theory is the great distance also
implies a great antiquity. Where are the recent quasars? Are we to
believe that the quasar is some ancient mythological beast that only
existed in a distant galaxy a long time ago?


Another explanation for the large red shifts is that they arise from
passing through gravity wells along the way, instead of distance alone.
The trouble with this theory, is that the shifting from gravity wells
doesn't seem to be enough to explain the amount of the red shift
involved.


But what if the light did not simply pass by the gravity source?

As light shines on a black hole, some drops straight in past the event
horizon, never to be seen again. But as Einstein has shown, gravity can
bend light. So some of the light trying to pass by gets dragged into
the black hole on a spiral trajectory. Other light only gets bent
slightly, as it grazes the gravity well before continuing on its way.
This is known as gravitational lensing.


What if the light looped around the gravity well?

It is reasonable to assume, some of the light will neither pass by, nor
get dragged in, but will instead orbit the black hole like an object
would.

It is also reasonable to assume that some of the light will take a path
in between normal gravitational lensing and permanent orbiting. This
light will actually loop around the black hole. It will also be more
drastically red shifted from passing closer to the black hole and for a
longer time than during normal gravitational lensing. The light may
even orbit awhile before escaping, red shifting it even more. This
extreme gravitational lensing causes the black hole's gravity well to
act as a gravitational mirror, reflecting light at multiple angles.


This theory accounts for the large red shifts of quasars without the
need to assume their great distance, energy output, or antiquity. In
addition it suggest that most quasars could simply be reflections of
ordinary stars located anywhere within telescope range, even,
surprisingly, behind the observer, as the light could loop back a full
180 degrees from the reflecting black hole.



http://freeearth.org/samples/index.p...e=altastronomy

In article . com,
wrote:

Are Quasars Really THAT Far Away?

Your knowledge of quasars is at least 20 years old.

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote:
Are Quasars Really THAT Far Away?

The red shifts of light from quasars are so large, it is commonly
believed that quasars are a great distance away. Yet some vary in light
output within a very short time. These quasars must be small enough
that the variations can occur across the quasar without breaking the
speed of light, yet produce enough luminous energy that they can still
be seen from that great a distance. A bit of a stretch of the laws of
physics. Another problem with this theory is the great distance also
implies a great antiquity. Where are the recent quasars? Are we to
believe that the quasar is some ancient mythological beast that only
existed in a distant galaxy a long time ago?


Another explanation for the large red shifts is that they arise from
passing through gravity wells along the way, instead of distance alone.
The trouble with this theory, is that the shifting from gravity wells
doesn't seem to be enough to explain the amount of the red shift
involved.


But what if the light did not simply pass by the gravity source?

As light shines on a black hole, some drops straight in past the event
horizon, never to be seen again. But as Einstein has shown, gravity can
bend light. So some of the light trying to pass by gets dragged into
the black hole on a spiral trajectory. Other light only gets bent
slightly, as it grazes the gravity well before continuing on its way.
This is known as gravitational lensing.


What if the light looped around the gravity well?

It is reasonable to assume, some of the light will neither pass by, nor
get dragged in, but will instead orbit the black hole like an object
would.

It is also reasonable to assume that some of the light will take a path
in between normal gravitational lensing and permanent orbiting. This
light will actually loop around the black hole. It will also be more
drastically red shifted from passing closer to the black hole and for a
longer time than during normal gravitational lensing. The light may
even orbit awhile before escaping, red shifting it even more. This
extreme gravitational lensing causes the black hole's gravity well to
act as a gravitational mirror, reflecting light at multiple angles.


This theory accounts for the large red shifts of quasars without the
need to assume their great distance, energy output, or antiquity. In
addition it suggest that most quasars could simply be reflections of
ordinary stars located anywhere within telescope range, even,
surprisingly, behind the observer, as the light could loop back a full
180 degrees from the reflecting black hole.



http://freeearth.org/samples/index.p...e=altastronomy


Why not consider that the quasers might have much greater gravity wells
themselves (more mass in them), and light red shifts just escaping from
their own well?

Double-A

In article . com,
"Double-A" wrote:


Why not consider that the quasers might have much greater gravity wells
themselves (more mass in them), and light red shifts just escaping from
their own well?

Quasars are no longer such a big mystery....

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Double-A" wrote in news:1168562034.287695.203680
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


wrote:
Are Quasars Really THAT Far Away?

The red shifts of light from quasars are so large, it is commonly
believed that quasars are a great distance away. Yet some vary in light
output within a very short time. These quasars must be small enough
that the variations can occur across the quasar without breaking the
speed of light, yet produce enough luminous energy that they can still
be seen from that great a distance. A bit of a stretch of the laws of
physics. Another problem with this theory is the great distance also
implies a great antiquity. Where are the recent quasars? Are we to
believe that the quasar is some ancient mythological beast that only
existed in a distant galaxy a long time ago?


Another explanation for the large red shifts is that they arise from
passing through gravity wells along the way, instead of distance alone.
The trouble with this theory, is that the shifting from gravity wells
doesn't seem to be enough to explain the amount of the red shift
involved.


But what if the light did not simply pass by the gravity source?

As light shines on a black hole, some drops straight in past the event
horizon, never to be seen again. But as Einstein has shown, gravity can
bend light. So some of the light trying to pass by gets dragged into
the black hole on a spiral trajectory. Other light only gets bent
slightly, as it grazes the gravity well before continuing on its way.
This is known as gravitational lensing.


What if the light looped around the gravity well?

It is reasonable to assume, some of the light will neither pass by, nor
get dragged in, but will instead orbit the black hole like an object
would.

It is also reasonable to assume that some of the light will take a path
in between normal gravitational lensing and permanent orbiting. This
light will actually loop around the black hole. It will also be more
drastically red shifted from passing closer to the black hole and for a
longer time than during normal gravitational lensing. The light may
even orbit awhile before escaping, red shifting it even more. This
extreme gravitational lensing causes the black hole's gravity well to
act as a gravitational mirror, reflecting light at multiple angles.


This theory accounts for the large red shifts of quasars without the
need to assume their great distance, energy output, or antiquity. In
addition it suggest that most quasars could simply be reflections of
ordinary stars located anywhere within telescope range, even,
surprisingly, behind the observer, as the light could loop back a full
180 degrees from the reflecting black hole.



http://freeearth.org/samples/index.php?
pagename=quasars&place=altastronomy


Why not consider that the quasers might have much greater gravity wells
themselves (more mass in them), and light red shifts just escaping from
their own well?

Because the host galaxies of many quasars have now been detected and they
have the same red shift as the quasar.

Kalzmon.



Double-A

"Scott Miller" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Are Quasars Really THAT Far Away?

The red shifts of light from quasars are so large, it is commonly
believed that quasars are a great distance away. Yet some vary in light
output within a very short time. These quasars must be small enough
that the variations can occur across the quasar without breaking the
speed of light, yet produce enough luminous energy that they can still
be seen from that great a distance. A bit of a stretch of the laws of
physics. Another problem with this theory is the great distance also
implies a great antiquity. Where are the recent quasars? Are we to
believe that the quasar is some ancient mythological beast that only
existed in a distant galaxy a long time ago?

[nonuseful speculation deleted for brevity]

The light variability of quasars is well understood to be due to the
finite speed of light and how far light can travel in a finite time
period. An object can vary in brightness no faster than light can
travel across the object. This leads to the conclusion that quasars are
in fact small.

Observations show them to be the cores of distant galaxies, some of
which are in collision (thanks to HST imagery). Such collision were
more common in the past than today - thus we do not see quasars near to
us.

Finally, there are quite a few examples of quasars in gravitational lens
situations - those types of gravitational lensing of quasars can only
occur if they are at great distance compared to the lensing object.

In other words, it is time for you to get into recent knowledge, as
suggested by another commentator to your note.

*Sock alert!*

wrote:
Are Quasars Really THAT Far Away?

The red shifts of light from quasars are so large, it is commonly
believed that quasars are a great distance away. Yet some vary in light
output within a very short time. These quasars must be small enough
that the variations can occur across the quasar without breaking the
speed of light, yet produce enough luminous energy that they can still
be seen from that great a distance. A bit of a stretch of the laws of
physics. Another problem with this theory is the great distance also
implies a great antiquity. Where are the recent quasars? Are we to
believe that the quasar is some ancient mythological beast that only
existed in a distant galaxy a long time ago?

[nonuseful speculation deleted for brevity]

The light variability of quasars is well understood to be due to the
finite speed of light and how far light can travel in a finite time
period. An object can vary in brightness no faster than light can
travel across the object. This leads to the conclusion that quasars are
in fact small.

Observations show them to be the cores of distant galaxies, some of
which are in collision (thanks to HST imagery). Such collision were
more common in the past than today - thus we do not see quasars near to us.

Finally, there are quite a few examples of quasars in gravitational lens
situations - those types of gravitational lensing of quasars can only
occur if they are at great distance compared to the lensing object.

In other words, it is time for you to get into recent knowledge, as
suggested by another commentator to your note.

Double-A Out comes my universe picture scape book,and I'm looking at
"active galactic nucleus"(AGN) They have very great energy cores.
Astronomers say a massive black hole of about a billion stars. Its not
the black hole that is so bright its what the black hole is doing to
stars that got to close.. Black hole even with such a mass is small,and
so is the incredible luminous disc. This is the answer astronomers give
to Quasars. Are they so far away? They very well could be? Double-A
What if the light is red ****ted because a black hole is right in back
of the great disc of light?(it has to be) Einstein will tell you
gravity can shift light to red,as well as if the source of this light is
moving away from us,or we are moving away from it. That is why
measuring distance using red shift is tricky stuff. Well to sum it up
I think a quasar is a super active galaxy that has a massive BH,and has
squeezed its surrounding billions of stars in very close,so that it can
shred 100s of stars per minute. These thoughts fit well with my
critical mass density BH theory. Quasars make for interesting
thinking. Gravity lensing is very useful,and it can also create tricky
measurements. Bert

Oops.. it has been a couple decades..and
this won't explain quasars where host galaxies are observed.
I hope this doesn't affect my grant proposal at Crackpot U..

I still think black hole mirrors would produce
strong red shifts though. I wonder how much red shift
would occur on a 180 loop around one-just outside
the event horison?