Or so the mainstream claims. But there’s a bunch of problems with that belief.60 Years Ago, Astronomers Cracked the Mystery of the Brightest Objects in the Universe
… snip …
They’re actually the ultra-bright centers of galaxies powered by powerful supermassive black holes.
First, they assume quasars are very distant objects based on redshift. But redshift is known to have other causes than Doppler effect which in the Big Bang universe equates to distance. There’s at least one quasar (NGC 7319) that appears to be in front on a galaxy that is much closer than the quasar’s redshift. The arrow on this photo points to that quasar: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... C_7319.jpg . The redshift of the galaxy is 0.022, denoting a distance of about 360 million light years. But the quasar’s redshift puts it at a distance thirty times farther. Are we really to believe that we can see that quasar through that galaxy? And notice that there is a jet emanating from the galaxy's nucleus and the quasar is lined up with the projection of that jet: http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_ ... C_7319.jpg . Is that just a coincidence or could the AGN have been the source of that quasar?
In fact, they haven’t explained any of Arp’s observations suggesting quasars are associated with one another and with source galaxies. For example, here’s a photo … http://discordancy.report/wp-content/up ... _rband.jpg … that shows 2 quasars that just happen to lie directly on a filament connecting NGC7603 and it’s companion NGC 7603B. What is troubling is that all four objects have very different redshifts supposedly corresponding to very different distances … but all four are aligned with a filament that appears to be connecting NGC 7603 and NGC 7603B. The red shift of the filament is that of NGC 7603. The authors of a 2004 paper … http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A%26A...421..407L … calculated the probability of three background galaxies of any type being randomly projected on a filament of a fourth galaxy at 3 BILLION to 1. And, furthermore, as the linked abstract of that paper states, the “detection of very vigorous star formation observed in the HII galaxies of the filament would have a low probability if they were background normal-giant galaxies; instead, the intensity of the lines is typical of dwarf HII galaxies.” So the probability of this is even lower than 3 billion to 1. In the paper, the authors conclude that non-cosmological redshift couldn’t be rejected. They considered the hypothesis of galaxies ejecting new matter (as proposed by Halton Arp) and thought it fit the system very well. In the end, they favored the ejection hypothesis because it explains the low probabilities in the system.
And here’s a discovery from 2010. https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery ... ifies.html “The phenomenon of time dilation is a strange yet experimentally confirmed effect of relativity theory. One of its implications is that events occurring in distant parts of the universe should appear to occur more slowly than events located closer to us. For example, when observing supernovae, scientists have found that distant explosions seem to fade more slowly than the quickly-fading nearby supernovae. … snip … 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.” So again, maybequasars aren’t as distant as their redshifts suggest?
And in that regard, has the mainstream EVER addressed the explanation for quasars that was put forth by Eric Lerner based on what the simulations done by Anthony Peratt of interacting galaxy sized filaments showed? They provided an alternative to what the mainstream BELIEVES quasars are and unless the mainstream effectively debunked what Lerner proposed, their certainty is arguably premature. Just like their certainty that only dark matter can explain the rotation curves of spiral galaxies ... another claim which Lerner/Peratt offered a counter explanation. Just saying …