Quasars are the Waterloo of LCDM theory.....

[Michael]

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html

There's something rather amusing about the fact that the mainstream claims that SN1A's show evidence of "time dilation" while blatantly ignoring the fact that Quasars defy that explanation entirely. If redshift were in fact caused by expansion, then we would expect Quasars to also show evidence of time dilation as well, but they don't.

If however ordinary signal broadening due to inelastic scattering is the actual cause of that "stretching" of the signal that we observe in SN1A events, then the timing of distant cyclical events from Quasars wouldn't necessarily be any different in terms of their cycle timing, even if the signals are "broadened" over time/distance. They might occasionally be smeared together in some instances, but the timing of the cycle would still be about the same regardless of the redshift which is exactly what we observe.

Redshift isn't a function of "space expansion" either in the lab or in space. Ordinary scattering in plasma is the cause of redshift and the cause of signal broadening which is exactly why distant Quasars show no sign of time dilation.

Quasars are the Waterloo of LCDM.

 

[Michael]

It's hard to imagine how it took me so long to run into this very interesting bit of information, particularly since it's so devastating to LCDM theory.

I'm curious to see if anyone actually addresses this problem or if it's another one of the many observations that simply do not fit with the LCDM dogma, which the mainstream tries to sweep under the rug, and ignore altogether.

There's no particularly "good" reason why SN1A events would experience signal broadening due to time dilation, whereas quasars would not be affected by the same process.

On the other hand, if signal broadening has nothing to do with time dilation, but rather due to ordinary inelastic scattering, then the regularity and timing of the repetitive pulses from quasars wouldn't necessarily change with distance even if the pulses get smeared together a bit.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's hard to imagine how it took me so long to run into this very interesting bit of information, particularly since it's so devastating to LCDM theory.

I'm curious to see if anyone actually addresses this problem or if it's another one of the many observations that simply do not fit with the LCDM dogma, which the mainstream tries to sweep under the rug, and ignore altogether.

Excellent - if it pans out, it's glorious vindication; if it doesn't, it's a foul conspiracy...

 

[Michael]

Excellent - if it pans out, it's glorious vindication; if it doesn't, it's a foul conspiracy...

If it's a "conspiracy", it's the most inept conspiracy in the history of physics because the mainstream keep shooting their own claims right in the foot.

It's just interesting to see where the cognitive dissonance of the mainstream rears it's ugly head, and how selective denial seems to be necessary to keep it at bay.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's just interesting to see where the cognitive dissonance of the mainstream rears it's ugly head, and how selective denial seems to be necessary to keep it at bay.

Excellent - projection...

 

[Michael]

Excellent - projection...

Feel free to explain that quasar anomaly for us.

 

[SelfSim]

i) Quasar emission lines exhibit evidence of cosmological redshift (caused by expansion);
ii) Quasars form part of a small subset of objects that apparently do not exhibit expected, detectable evidence of time dilation (ie: they are not alone);
iii) Quasars are very old, thus their emissions must travel vastly larger distances than the other elements mentioned in the subset in (ii) above;
iv) Quasar spectra exhibit neutral hydrogen gas absorption lines, caused by their EM radiation transitting the very early universe, which had more neutral hydrogen gas;

One viable explanation, currently being pursued, (even by the author's work linked to in the OP), is that time dilation information may have been erased during the transit. Microlensing is thus, an active avenue of investigation.

 

[Michael]

i) Quasar emission lines exhibit evidence of cosmological redshift (caused by expansion);

Actually, the lack of time dilation would imply that emission line changes are due to "tired light", not expansion. If expansion were the real cause, the whole signal and the timing of various cyclical emissions would show evidence of time dilation. We do not observe that however, so inelastic scattering is a more plausible cause of emission line changes, and we observe that effect on photons in the lab, unlike "space expansion".

ii) Quasars form part of a small subset of objects that apparently do not exhibit expected, detectable evidence of time dilation (ie: they are not alone);

What other objects lack evidence of time dilation?

iii) Quasars are very old, thus their emissions must travel vastly larger distances than the other elements mentioned in the subset in (ii) above;

Hubble Finds Nearest Quasar Powered by a Double Black Hole

Some quasars aren't all that distant actually.

Why would that even matter in the first place? The distance should still be related to the time shift. Their age seems irrelevant.

iv) Quasar spectra exhibit neutral hydrogen gas absorption lines, caused by their EM radiation transitting the very early universe, which had more neutral hydrogen gas;

Neutral hydrogen? That just opens up a whole different can of worms for LCDM:

Scientists have found a galaxy that’s so far away they shouldn’t be able to see it

"The surprising aspect about the present discovery is that we have detected this Lyman-alpha line in an apparently faint galaxy at a redshift of 8.68, corresponding to a time when the universe should be full of absorbing hydrogen clouds," said Richard Ellis, a professor of astrophysics at University College London, said in a statement.

According to LCDM, we shouldn't even be able to observe the h-alpha line from such an old galaxy. Based on LCDM theory all that type of light should have been absorbed by neutral hydrogen prior to re-ionization. You're creating even more problems for yourself.

One viable explanation, currently being pursued, (even by the author's work linked to in the OP), is that time dilation information may have been erased during the transit. Microlensing is thus, an active avenue of investigation.

Every single quasar just so happens to experiencing microlensing? That sounds more than a little far fetched doesn't it?

This is the kind of observation that really should falsify LCDM. That lack of time dilation basically blows away LCDM, but rather than accept that fact, I hear ad-hoc excuses galore. The problem isn't really dealt with, and it's hidden in a closet unless someone happens to mention it.

So in spite of the fact that we see h-alpha lines during a time when the universe should have been opaque to those wavelengths, and in spite of the fact that the largest, and sometimes furthest objects show no sign of time dilation as they should, all that contradictory information is just swept under the carpet and everyone pretends it doesn't matter.

 

[SelfSim]

Ho hum .. Yet another thread where Michael, (aka 'Mr 1=0.5'), in his attempts to trash things he isn't yet ready to comprehend, (let alone criticize), gets it wrong again!

Michael's “theory” that the Ha line should disappear in such old galaxies is total rubbish!

See the attached 3C-273 spectrum, which also serves to expose (and give credit to), the originator of the spectrum who is henceforth exposed as apparently being one of Michael's 'most inept conspirac(ists) in the history of physics.' .. (Oh .. he, co-incidentally, is also a CFs poster, who goes by the name 'sjastro' - over to you, 'sjastro'). The attached spectrum of a quasar, clearly shows the Ha redshift!

In the rest frame, the Lyman Alpha forest of neutral hydrogen is composed of a series of discrete emission lines in the UV wavelength range from 91.2 – 121.6nm.
The Ha line in its rest frame, is way over in the red part of the visible spectrum, at 656nm.
For absorption to occur, the wavelength of the Ha line, would have to be the same as one of the Lyman Alpha emission lines. Clearly, it isn’t anywhere even remotely close!!!

Michael has obviously failed to consider that even though the Lyman Alpha forest is redshifted to much longer wavelengths (as per to his link), so too, has the Ha line of the galaxy.
The Ha will never be absorbed by the Lyman Alpha forest, as it is redshifted into the microwave/radio end of the spectrum!

Note how Michael automatically assumes this a problem for the LCDM model, even though a non cosmological explanation is given in his referenced link, as to why this galaxy is visible over vast distances, as follows:

The galaxy we have observed, EGS8p7, which is unusually luminous, may be powered by a population of unusually hot stars, and it may have special properties that enabled it to create a large bubble of ionized hydrogen much earlier than is possible for more typical galaxies at these times," Sirio Belli, a Caltech graduate student who worked on the project, said in a statement.

The irony is, Michael’s link is more of a problem for his: 'redshift is caused by scattering' nonsense, unless his miraculous cosmology can somehow explain how this object is even visible, when subjected to 13.2 billion light years of scattering?'

 

[SelfSim]

Actually, the lack of time dilation would imply that emission line changes are due to "tired light", not expansion. If expansion were the real cause, the whole signal and the timing of various cyclical emissions would show evidence of time dilation. We do not observe that however, so inelastic scattering is a more plausible cause of emission line changes, and we observe that effect on photons in the lab, unlike "space expansion".

.. The classic false dichotomy fallacy!
Michael's conclusion that inelastic scattering is “more plausible”, is not based on any technical reasons as to why this so. It’s a default position based on the assumption if expansion is wrong, then inelastic scattering is automatically right, and is hence the classic false dichotomy argument.

Since Michael believes the absence of time dilation supports “tired light”, then logically, the converse that if time dilation does exist, then tired light must be wrong.
Michael should then Google “Active Galactic Nucleus” “cosmological time dilation” then explain the plethora of reports which clearly indicate that time dilation exists for objects that also have accretion disks around a supermassive BHs like quasars.

Some quasars aren't all that distant actually.

Why would that even matter in the first place? The distance should still be related to the time shift. Their age seems irrelevant.

That latter statement doesn’t even make sense!
What is the definition of an object 'not being distant'?
What is the distance parameter that defines this?
What on earth does 'distance related to time shift', even mean?

 

[Michael]

Ho hum .. Yet another thread where Michael, (aka 'Mr 1=0.5'), in his attempts to trash things he isn't yet ready to comprehend, (let alone criticize), gets it wrong again!

Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael. Instead of addressing the *issues* described in the opening post, you're constantly bearing false witness against me. The irony in this case is that I had to *fix you math error* and I had to *simplify your formula* too because you botched your own personal attack campaign, and you messed up the *math formula* no less! Irony overload. To avoid the cognitive dissonance of the experience, you've somehow convinced yourself that programmers never use multiple letter variables, even though the formula I used was *simplified to start with* no less. Oy Vey.

Michael's “theory” that the Ha line should disappear in such old galaxies is total rubbish!

What exactly does it take to falsify your invisible magic theory anyway? First you 'predict' that neutral hydrogen reigned supreme in the early universe, yet we find evidence that isn't true. Your supernatural creation mythology also predicts an evolution of galaxies, but we find numerous "mature" galaxies in the early universe which keep pushing back your creation mythology timelines over and over again.

Fifteen Old, Massive Galaxies Found in the Early Universe --"They Shouldn't Even Exist"

We then discover that *in direct conflict* with LCDM claims, distant quasars show no signs of time dilation as they should in your creation mythology. Every one of your "predictions" related to "dark matter" bit the dust in the lab, and none of you can explain where "dark energy" even comes from, let alone logically explain how it retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. The whole denial thing you do is held together by a healthy dose of personal attacks anytime anyone points out the flaws in your claims. You cognitive dissonance requires you to play "kill/blame the messenger" in every single post instead of explaining why your theory doesn't work right.

See the attached 3C-273 spectrum, which also serves to expose (and give credit to), the originator of the spectrum who is henceforth exposed as apparently being one of Michael's 'most inept conspirac(ists) in the history of physics.' .. (Oh .. he, co-incidentally, is also a CFs poster, who goes by the name 'sjastro' - over to you, 'sjastro'). The attached spectrum of a quasar, clearly shows the Ha redshift!

Who cares if it shows redshift patterns? Tired light theories also predict redshift. What they don't predict is time dilation or an era of "neutral hydrogen". In both cases the tired light solutions come up smelling like a rose, whereas your supernatural creation mythology fails to correctly predict the observations, repeatedly and often.

In the rest frame, the Lyman Alpha forest of neutral hydrogen is composed of a series of discrete emission lines in the UV wavelength range from 91.2 – 121.6nm.
The Ha line in its rest frame, is way over in the red part of the visible spectrum, at 656nm.

You're intentionally misdirecting this thread. This thread is about *time dilation*, not "photon redshift". Every cosmology theory, and every tired light proposal predicts photon redshift and signal broadening, every single one. Your theory however predicts *time dilation*, which we do not observe!

You're clearly desperate to deflect this conversation away from your time dilation problems and misdirect it back to "redshift", which is obviously an irrelevant diversion.

For absorption to occur, the wavelength of the Ha line, would have to be the same as one of the Lyman Alpha emission lines. Clearly, it isn’t anywhere even remotely close!!!

We're not talking about why your lines aren't absorbed right before they reach the Earth, we're discussing why they weren't absorbed *billions of years ago*, when your creation mythology predicts the universe was full of neutral hydrogen and those hydrogen lines were first emitted. You're clearly misdirecting the conversation again.

Michael has obviously failed to consider that even though the Lyman Alpha forest is redshifted to much longer wavelengths (as per to his link), so too, has the Ha line of the galaxy.
The Ha will never be absorbed by the Lyman Alpha forest, as it is redshifted into the microwave/radio end of the spectrum!

Sure, *now* it's shifted, billions of light years later, but it wasn't redshifted when it was emitted 13.2 billion years ago! It should have been absorbed by the hydrogen gas surrounding that galaxy long, long, long ago, way before it was reshifted to lower energy wavelengths.

Note how Michael automatically assumes this a problem for the LCDM model, even though a non cosmological explanation is given in his referenced link, as to why this galaxy is visible over vast distances, as follows:

The galaxy we have observed, EGS8p7, which is unusually luminous, may be powered by a population of unusually hot stars, and it may have special properties that enabled it to create a large bubble of ionized hydrogen much earlier than is possible for more typical galaxies at these times," Sirio Belli, a Caltech graduate student who worked on the project, said in a statement.

Oh look, another case of special pleading ensues. In fact they even use the term "special" in their handwavy explanation. Special stars, special bubbles, special everything.

Every potential falsification of your theory is simply swept under the carpet using special pleading arguments galore, and you still haven't offered us a valid explanation as to why quasars show no signs of time dilation. All we've heard thus far is a reference to a string of miracles galore, where light from *every single quasar in the unvverse* has to experience some kind of special handwavy lensing process on it's way to Earth, but somehow every photon from all SN1A events show no signs of this "special" lensing routine. Wow. Talk about faith in miracles.

The irony is, Michael’s link is more of a problem for his: 'redshift is caused by scattering' nonsense, unless his miraculous cosmology can somehow explain how this object is even visible, when subjected to 13.2 billion light years of scattering?'

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
New Tired Light Correctly Predicts the Redshift of the Corbor Galaxy Cluster, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1308.0102
arXiv.org Search

Plenty of tired light proposals since the time of Fritz Zwicky's original proposal have explained it for you. It's really too bad that you refuse to read or consider any of them.

It's rather telling that your only method of dealing with your cognitive dissonance is to blame me personally for your problems. How sad for you.

 

[Michael]

.. The classic false dichotomy fallacy!

False. It was Edwin Hubble himself who first proposed *two* possible explanations for photon redshift, tired light and expansion (not necessarily "space expansion" mind you).

There's no false dichotomy in the first place, because "space expansion" isn't even a demonstrated "empirical' solution to the observation of photon redshift in the first place, because nothing of the sort takes place in the lab. On the other hand, photons are *routinely* documented to transfer some of their momentum to plasma in the lab.

Michael's conclusion that inelastic scattering is “more plausible”, is not based on any technical reasons as to why this so.

False! The first "technical reason" I mentioned is related to your botched prediction about time dilation of distant quasars. There isn't any time dilation from quasar emissions! The second obvious "technical reason" is the fact that "space expansion" isn't even a real empirically demonstrated cause of photon redshift in the first place. In stark contrast to your religious "act of faith" in space expansion as a potential cause of redshift, photons routinely lose some energy when they pass through a plasma medium. It's a well documented phenomenon *in the lab* no less! Tired light theory isn't just a more plausible explanation for redshift, it's the only empirically demonstrated cause of photon redshift other than moving objects which has nothing to do with "space expansion", despite your industry's blatantly unethical "bait and switch" routine.

It’s a default position based on the assumption if expansion is wrong, then inelastic scattering is automatically right, and is hence the classic false dichotomy argument.

False. Photon redshift in plasma is well documented in the lab, and it has known empirical causes (plural) in the lab. You however require "magic" photons that must miraculously weave and dodge their way around every EM field gradient, every temperature gradient, and every particle in the universe to reach the Earth without once interacting with the medium in any way.

Since Michael believes.....

Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael. Sheesh. You hijack every thread, you talk about the individual in every thread, and you turn the thread into an excuse to launch yourself into a childish personal attack. Yawn. You two are entirely predictable.

the absence of time dilation supports “tired light”, then logically, the converse that if time dilation does exist, then tired light must be wrong.

If you can demonstrate it's actually "time dilation' and not a form of signal broadening, sure. If not, some observations might 'look like' time dilation, but may actually be a function of signal broadening, another well documented process in the lab. The observation that sinks your ship however is the fact that quasars show no sign at all of time dilation, regardless of the distances, and presumed velocities involved.

Michael should then Google “Active Galactic Nucleus” “cosmological time dilation” then explain the plethora of reports which clearly indicate that time dilation exists for objects that also have accretion disks around a supermassive BHs like quasars.

I'm sure that signal broadening occurs in all "one off" observations which you of course would try to interpret as 'time dilation'. Your problem however is that quasars are *cyclical* in terms of their emissions as we can measure those cycles. They don't show any pattern of time dilation even if they might experience some signal broadening.

That latter statement doesn’t even make sense!
What is the definition of an object 'not being distant'?

The z value of the quasar doesn't effect the length of the timing of the quasar emission cycles as predicted by your model.

What is the distance parameter that defines this?

Your theory equates *velocity* with z values.

What on earth does 'distance related to time shift', even mean?

You know full well what it means. Don't play coy. It's not going to work.

Let me guess. You're going to engage yourself in more personal attacks, and talk about "Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael" instead of dealing with the *topic* of the thread.

 

[Michael]

See the attached 3C-273 spectrum, which also serves to expose.....

....another major problem with your "space expansion" claim!

According to your graph, the Ha line is shifted by 104nm (760-656), the Hb line is shifted by 77nm (563-486) and the Hy line is shifted by 69nm (503-434). They aren't even the same amount of redshift! Yep, you folks consistently and routinely shoot your own claims in the foot, and you did it again.

 

[sjastro]

....another major problem with your "space expansion" claim!

According to your graph, the Ha line is shifted by 104nm (760-656), the Hb line is shifted by 77nm (563-486) and the Hy line is shifted by 69nm (503-434). They aren't even the same amount of redshift! Yep, you folks consistently and routinely shoot your own claims in the foot, and you did it again.

Yes Michael its ironical you should mention the term foot because you have well and truly inserted it into your own mouth.

Redshift z of Hγ = (503-434)/434
= 0.159

Redshift z of Hβ = (563-486)/486
= 0.158

Redshift z of Hα = (760 – 656)/656
=0.159

Redshift of 3C-273 according to the SIMBAD astronomical database z = 0.158339

What makes your ineptness even more profound is that I quoted the redshift formula in your GW thread.
What happens now Michael are you going to admit you are comprehensively wrong or go into your usual self denial act and argue you are correct much like your 1=0.5 and statistical noise has a cause nonsense.

 

[Michael]

What happens now Michael are you going to admit you are comprehensively wrong

What happens now is I admit my rather silly mistake. Unlike you two I'm actually capable of admitting my mistakes and I didn't do the full calculations to check my statement in that case. That was in fact my fault, unlike the pure BS that you make up on a constant basis.

Let's see if Selfsim is big enough to admit his mistake now and lets see if you are big enough to admit that you just made up that .5=1 nonsense now.

 

[SelfSim]

..

Now Britney was pretty hot back in those days ... (Is that admitting a mistake)?

 

[Michael]

So let's see what your creation myth predicts, and what we actually observe:

Your theory predicts that galaxies "evolve' over time, but the further we look back in time, the more we find "mature" galaxies that don't jive with your predictions:

Surprisingly mature galaxy discovered in the early Universe

Your supernatural creation mythology predicts that distant objects should show signs of time dilation, but they don't.

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html

Strike two.

Your supernatural creation mythology predicts that it took about a billion years before the reionization process was complete, but lo and behold we see h-alpha lines from galaxies that we shouldn't even be able to see:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...s-nearly-as-old-as-the-universe-10491373.html

"The surprising aspect about the present discovery is that we have detected this Lyman-alpha line in an apparently faint galaxy at a redshift of 8.68, corresponding to a time when the universe should be full of absorbing hydrogen clouds," said Richard Ellis, a professor of astrophysics at University College London, said in a statement.

Strike three.

I'm pretty sure the jig is up when the Webb telescope keeps finding more mature galaxies for as far as it can see, and it blows more holes in your claims.

Care to admit any of the mistakes in your bogus creation mythology?

 

[Michael]

And of course let's not forget that contrary to evolutionary predictions of LCDM, those ancient galaxies are "dustier' and they contain more heavy elements than they're supposed to have:

Astronomers Find a Dusty Galaxy That Shouldn't Exist

The problem, the scientists report Monday in Nature, is that while the tiny galaxy dates from just 700 million years or so after the big bang, it's far more dusty than something this young and small has any right to be.

Not only that, they have massive black holes already which defy "predictions":

Gigantic Black Hole Discovered From the Dawn of Time

The only "explanation" they seemed to come up with involves more special pleading of course:

The only problem with the jump-start scenario is that astronomers don't know for sure that million-solar-mass stars ever existed. "We've never seen one," Loeb admits. "But with the James Webb Space Telescope," he says, which is scheduled to go into orbit in 2018, "we just might."

They just might not too. Hope springs eternal I suppose.

There are literally huge holes in LCDM mythology that simply defy all your early predictions, and that's not even including all those dark matter experiments that defied all your predictions, not to mention the fact that the standard particle physics model has passed every conceivable test to date with flying colors, again in pure defiance of your model.

So aside from quasars which are devoid of time dilation as predicted by your theory, and mature galaxies which defy your claims of galaxy evolution, and massive black holes in the early universe that shouldn't be that large yet, and h-alpha lines from galaxies where we shouldn't see them, and metals in early galaxies before they should be there, and all the laboratory experiments in particle physics which blow dark matter theory out of the water, your supernatural creation mythology is in pretty good shape.

 

[Michael]

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5927315/hubble-has-spotted-an-ancient-galaxy-that-shouldnt-exist

"The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," said University of Toronto's David Law, lead author of the study. "Current wisdom holds that such ‘grand-design' spiral galaxies simply didn't exist at such an early time in the history of the universe."

And of course there are those 'grand design' galaxies in the ancient universe that shouldn't exist yet....

 

[Michael]

Oh, and let us not forget those blazars galaxies and their black holes that are simply way more massive than anything LCDM predicted:

NASA Finds a Trove of Mysterious Ancient Galaxies Full of Absolutely Huge Black Holes

Black holes of this size should take a very long time to form, so finding them in the early universe is something of a surprise.

In addition, finding so many seems to suggest that these blazars are far more common than scientists thought.

It's simply amazing how many time you folks are "surprised" by various observations at high redshifts.