Posted on 07/29/2016 3:23:48 PM PDT by blam
Quasar Found 420 Trillion Times Brighter Than Our Sun
An international team of astronomers have discovered a huge quasar 420 trillion times brighter than our sun around 12.8 billion light years away from Earth, placing its formation around 875 million years after the big bang. The ancient object is powered by a massive black hole and contains a staggering 12 billion solar masses, surprising scientists who had not expected such a huge bright quasar so close to the dawn of time. The quasar was found using telescopes located in China, Hawaii, Arizona, and Chile, and as Xue-Bing Wu, of Peking University, explains:
“How could we have this massive black hole when the universe was so young? We don’t currently have a satisfactory theory to explain it.”
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at astronomytrek.com ...
Our TV Repairman was like part of the family I can still remember the smell of the pipe he smoked as he fixed our TV
I wonder if the majority of mass in the universe is in these things. If so, I believe it would eliminate the need for dark matter theories.
IMHO, there’s more than enough mass in galactic centers, which, combined with very dense concentrations of matter not yet absorbed by black holes therein, to hold the galaxies together without invoking “dark matter” to correct some phantom insufficiency.
My fave was Borkum Riff
His data?
Maybe time/distance are not totally uniform throughout the universe?
Arp's evidence is very hard to dispute.
What’s more likely... that a quasar 420 trillion times as bright as the sun existed 12.8 billion years ago... or that scientists are misinterpreting the data using a flawed theory?
Actually, it should read this way:
“A quasar, recently ejected from its relatively nearby parent galaxy, has such an extreme intrinsic redshift that, if indicative of recessional velocity rather than age, would put it at such a distance that its intrinsic brightness would make it appear to be 420 trillion time brighter than our sun.”
Funny how much trouble the simple but wrong interpretation of redshift as indicative of recessional velocity in the early days of modern astronomy can cause.
When I smoked a pipe, my choice was Mixture 79.
Global warming without SUV’s?
You don’t want to be in the same galaxy as that thing.
>>His data?<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I will summarize multiple books, some of which I have read:
Arp photographed many, many galaxy-quasar pairings where the red shift of the quasars make them appear to be in a vastly different place than the galaxies with which they are clearly associated.
This can only mean that the red shift DOES NOT translate to distance and velocity, but perhaps to some other properties of matter, space and light.
The traditional red-shift interpretation would indicate the quasars are MUCH FURTHER away than they really are, making it seem they must be much larger and more energetic.
This is the basis of the absurd claim in the title of this thread.
Incidentally, this faulty theory is the basis of all academic cosmology. It is going to be almost impossible for the academics to give up on it.
You joke, but what’s the measurement error on something like this?
My rough calculations are that the sun has an apparent brightness 1.6 x 10^15 times larger than the quasar, with the quasar having an absolute brightness 4.2 x 10^14 times larger than the sun.
Where can I get one of those little diode flashlights that bright?
Mindless politically-addicted Leftist reply: “We need a government 420 trillion times the size of what we have now to deal with it.”
I would ask, as red and blue shift measurements are consistent at closer distances where other measurements can be made along with them to test their agreement, at what distance, do these “other” effects appear? And wouldn’t a variance suggest first an inconsistency with the new model, rather than a rejection of the earlier, well established physical standards?
And that being relatively alone in the physics community - not that that’s always the sole criterion as to the validity of an idea by any means - though it usually means that one’s work has been “weighed, and found wanting”.
Whichever> The EPA is right on it. Pretty soon the quasar will be fined, put on eternal supervised probation, and dimmed to the level of a 25 Watt bulb.
Big Government - looking out for the universe whether you want it to or not!
>>And wouldn’t a variance suggest first an inconsistency with the new model . . . ?<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am not aware that Arp has presented a new model, just refuted the old one, for anyone willing to look with their own eyes at the photographic evidence.
Incidentally, his credentials are impeccable.
Of course referring to Thomas Kuhn in such discussions is almost a cliche . . . but, I happen to think his “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” is one of the great books. It clearly identifies the phases for overthrow of old theories beginning with ammassing of anomolous observations. SUMMARY of the process: IT AIN’T EASY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.