Looks like Bob ran away.
But since he’s now claiming CERTAINTY, I have a few questions for him.
ONE. Just how does he explain quasar jets? Without resorting to gnomes, I mean? A recent mainstream article (
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2015/05/h ... k-hole-jet ) admitted that “Such extragalactic jets are not well understood.” Can he be that honest or will he insist that he’s certain how it works?
TWO. Why are the rotation axes in a sample of quasars spread over distances of a billion light years parallel to each other? That was the conclusion of astronomers/astrophysicists with the ESO’s VLT in China:
http://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1438 . As that article notes “’The alignments in the new data, on scales even bigger than current predictions from simulations, may be a hint that there is a missing ingredient in our current models of the cosmos’ concludes Dominique Sluse.” What do you suppose that missing ingredient might be, Bob? I’ll give you three guesses.
THREE. How can Bob even be sure that quasars are distant objects? Redshift? But that assumes redshift can only be caused by recessional velocity … and thus associated with distance in the Big Bang model. But experiments now show that there are other causes of redshift. In fact, electromagnetic energy passing through plasma has been experimentally shown in labs on earth to exhibit redshift. As a result, he can’t really be sure of the distance or power output from quasars.
As a further indication of this, I wonder how he explains observations that suggest quasars are much closer than the mainstream *degreed* physicists think? How does he explain observations that suggest they are associated with another? For example, here’s a quasar quartet:
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-astronome ... uasar.html that in the words of the article has astronomers “baffled”. They found four active quasars that are not only in close proximity but all in a line:
http://www.keckobservatory.org/images/b ... 72dpi1.jpg . Imagine that! Can you explain how black holes do that, Bob? Halton Arp had a possible explanation. Care to comment on that?
Here’s an Arp discovery … one reported in Astrophysical Journal in 2004, where a quasar is seen in front of galaxy NGC 7319, right near its Active Galactic Nucleus. The arrow points to the 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 the heart of that galaxy? And notice that there is a jet emanating from the AGN and the quasar is lined up with the projection of that jet:
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_ ... C_7319.jpg . Just a coincidence, Bob?
Or how about this one?
http://discordancy.report/wp-content/up ... _rband.jpg shows 2 quasars the 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. What say you, Bob?
And I could go on and on and on showing you observations like that, Bob.
FOUR. How does Bob justify completely ignoring the explanation for quasars that was put forth by Eric Lerner and what the simulations done by Anthony Peratt of interacting galaxy sized filaments showed? They provide an alternative to what he thinks quasars are and unless he can effectively debunk what they propose, his certainty is arguably premature. Or are you simply ignorant of these things, Bob? And if you are ignorant of them, how again can you be sure you know what quasars are?
Read this article, Bob:
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-astronomer ... osmic.html . It’s about a pair of closely associated protogalaxies that each have a quasar. I find it interesting for a number of reasons. First, notice that the word “plasma” is not mentioned anywhere in it. Again, just “gas”. Talk about astrophysicists putting blinders on … STUCK ON STUPID. Second, notice that they label the gas “cold” but that’s a misnomer. It isn’t “cold”. It’s at 10000+ C. Because it’s not a neutral “gas”. It’s a PLASMA. It’s a fourth state of matter and one that acts quite differently than ordinary cold gas. STUCK ON STUPID. Third, notice that they are finally admitting the existence of huge intergalactic filaments in the current AND past universe and are now connecting huge filaments of plasma (not "gas") in the intergalactic medium to the formation of galaxies … something that plasma cosmologists predicted 40 years ago. STUCK ON STUPID. And now, fourth, they even have a picture of those filaments connecting the protogalaxies. But they still can’t see the obvious.
Bob, look closely at the following image:
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hir ... hastro.jpg . You can click on the link I provided to blow it up even bigger. If you do, you can clearly see that there isn’t just a single filament of "gas" connecting the two quasars. There are clearly TWO filaments running into the left most quasar and out of it towards the right most quasar. And if you look carefully at the filamentary structure between the two quasars, you can see that the two filaments are helically wound. This is just as predicted by the plasma cosmologists for the formation of galaxies from plasma filaments carrying Birkeland currents. Here’s a graphic (
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-conten ... galaxy.jpg ) depicting the plasma cosmologist’s (electric universe) model of galaxy formation from YEARS AND YEARS ago. Plasma cosmologists (Alfven and Lerner, in particular) said quasars occur when two intergalactic current carrying plasma filaments interact and wind themselves helically together thus jump starting a homopolar generator with a plasmoid at the center where all the current flowing as a result of the rotating magnetic fields is concentrated, releasing vast amounts of energy as the system further collapses due to gravity.
As Lerner wrote in his 1980s book, “the energy taken from rotation and gravitational contraction of the object will go into the creation of the dense plasmoid and will be released in the beams the plasmoids create as they decay. A quasar is thus the birth cry of a galaxy, the means by which the excess energy of rotation, which must be removed if the galaxy is to collapse, is carried away in the form of the energetic jets. Once the galaxy forms, the same process at a lower rate rules the repetitive formation of small plasmoids at its nucleus. The process is today generation stars in the dense filaments of the spiral arms. The theory can explain the source of a quasar’s immense power. The ultimate source is the rotational energy of an entire galaxy, augmented by the gravitational energy released as the galaxy contracts. This energy is converted to electrical power by the disk-generator action and concentrated in the smaller filaments moving toward the galaxy core. The filament pinches into a plasmoid that, for the largest quasars, might be a hundred light years across. The visible quasar, though, is far smaller. This is the region, a light-year or so wide, where each individual sub filament that composes the plasmoid is bursting apart as it radiates its energy and powers the emitted jets. Just as a hydroelectric dam draws power from the water falling in a river valley, the quasar is drawing energy immediately from the plasmoid’s magnetic field, a million times larger in volume, and ultimately from the entire galaxy. In this way the energy gained by the collapse of the galaxy is expelled as electrical energy in the quasar jets. Without the elimination of this energy, the galaxy would never form at all.”
Now this was written at a time when most astrophysicists were still denying that there were large intergalactic current carrying plasma filaments (which we now know is true). The mainstream astrophysics journals rejected Lerner’s scientific papers on this subject, dismissing the analogy between galaxies and plasma focuses (which were being tested in labs at the time by the way) as absurd. Only when his papers were resubmitted to a small plasma physics journal did they get published. Here’s one of those papers:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/Magneti ... No%201.pdf . You can clearly see how prescient Lerner (and Alfven) were ... and how blind the mainstream astrophysics community has been for more than 30 years since. It's pathetic what modern astrophysics has become. Literally STUCK ON STUPID.
Also, notice that the
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-astronomer ... osmic.html paper says “Once the gas merges with the disk inside the dark-matter halo, it is pulled around by the rotating gas and dark matter in the halo. … snip … Galaxies are thought to form within extended halos of dark matter.” So once again, we see the astrophysicists have to fall back on a combination of magic gnomes to explain observations that plasma physicists explained decades and decades ago (a fact that so far I can’t help but notice you’ve ignored). Even as they make the above claim, observations are indicating that the halo isn't made of exotic dark matter but ordinary matter ... plasma, in fact. And still they don't see the obvious. STUCK ON STUPID.
FIVE. Here’s a strange observation, Bob ….
http://www.popsci.com/scientists-find-d ... rby-quasar . Apparently astronomers have quasar with (according to you *degreed* gnome experts) two black holes inside it. And it just happens to be the quasar closest to earth! An guess what else? They’re predicting that these two black holes are going to collide in just a few hundred thousand years. How lucky can we be? Seriously, what are the odds of Homo Sapiens ... who have only been on earth 200,000 years or so, and only technologically capable to study the universe a few hundred years ... just happen to see a very rare object that will be gone in a just hundred thousand years ... in the nearest quasar to them. Well, Bob?
SIX. Here’s an even stranger discovery from back in 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.” Now I’ve searched the web and haven’t found an explanation by the mainstream for this. So tell us, *degreed* physicist … can you explain that to us? It seems to be yet another observation that the big bang/gnome supporting community have just swept under the rug as *inconvenient*. But then again, maybe you have sources we don’t? Or perhaps it means that quasars aren’t nearly as far away as you folks have claimed? Hmmmmm?