Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #617207 > unrolled thread

Quasar redshift

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Quasar redshift vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-02-06 14:45 +0000
    Re: Quasar redshift kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-06 10:35 -0500
      Re: Quasar redshift john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:50 -0800
      Re: Quasar redshift vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-02-06 16:28 +0000
        Re: Quasars are dying out because gravity itself is evaporating away. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-06 18:23 +0000
          Re: Entropy increases, eternally, without beginning or end. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-06 21:47 +0000
            Re: Entropy increases, eternally, without beginning or end. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:59 -0800
          Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 16:31 -0500
            Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-08 13:04 -0500
              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 12:34 -0800
                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-02-08 16:22 -0800
                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:08 -0800
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 22:00 -0800
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:33 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 15:07 -0800
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 18:30 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-02-09 15:31 -0800
                        whence clocks whould tickenn noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 19:58 -0800
                          Re: whence clocks whould tickenn noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:35 -0800
              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:14 -0800
                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 21:05 -0500
                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 08:54 -0800
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-11 17:54 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 00:58 -0800
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 03:25 -0800
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-13 16:04 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 03:26 -0800
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-13 16:05 -0500
              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:11 +1100
                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-10 23:35 -0800
                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:55 +1100
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 00:11 -0800
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 19:46 +1100
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 00:50 -0800
                          Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:07 +1100
                            Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 01:12 -0800
                              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:15 +1100
                                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 01:19 -0800
                                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:26 +1100
                                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 01:32 -0800
                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-11 05:06 -0500
                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 22:26 +1100
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-11 06:44 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 00:11 +1100
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-11 20:54 +0000
                          Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 09:45 +1100
                            Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-11 23:17 +0000
                              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:43 +1100
                              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-12 05:09 -0500
    Quasar redshift HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:56 -0800
      Quasar redshift john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 09:12 -0800
      Re: Quasar redshift benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 16:53 -0500
        Re: Quasar redshift noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 15:47 -0800
      Re: Quasar redshift Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-07 18:47 -0600
        The dopplerianS noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 19:20 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#617207 — Quasar redshift

Hey, I had an astrophysics question, and I understand there are
astrophysicists roaming these hallowed halls...

I'm wondering if the redshift seen with quasars might be due to something
other than distance, such as perhaps the gravity of their black holes?

I see here:

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

 ...the gist of which is this ObQuote:
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about
6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion
light years away, he was surprised to find that the light
signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If
these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae,
an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales
for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even
though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than
the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took
the light to reach Earth.
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Of course, that's from 7 years ago -- this conundrum could be explained
already, which is why I thought I'd ask you gentle sirs and madams if
there's anything new on this front?

(signed) Interested layperson

-- 
-v

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#617210

On 2/6/2017 9:45 AM, vallor wrote:
> Hey, I had an astrophysics question, and I understand there are
> astrophysicists roaming these hallowed halls...
>
> I'm wondering if the redshift seen with quasars might be due to something
> other than distance, such as perhaps the gravity of their black holes?
>
> I see here:
>
> https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html
[snip]

The more distant quasars are younger. Quasars are black holes. Younger 
ones are less massive; they haven't had time to eat as much stuff yet. 
Smaller things oscillate faster (think of a pendulum). The farther 
quasars are both faster (because they're smaller) and slower (because of 
time dilation).

The two effects roughly cancel out, since both are roughly linear in 
distance, assuming the growth of quasar black holes is roughly linear in 
time, which is reasonable -- it would be quadratic, but for the messy 
way black holes eat, accretion disks and jets and all, and that they end 
up hollowing out a volume around them -- a low-hanging fruit effect that 
contributes to growth early on, but depletes opportunities later.

Actually, supermassive black holes gain much more mass from gradually 
accumulating gas than from accumulating stars, gas that in turn accreted 
onto their host galaxies. As the universe expands, though, the 
intergalactic medium thins out, reducing the gas available to those 
supermassive black holes.

There are further complications; see e.g. 
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/363/1/2/1300118/How-do-galaxies-get-their-gas

Hawkins's own paper suggests this as one possible explanation for his 
observations, by the way.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617212

Younger?
ROTFLMAO

Quasars have an intrinsic redshift, yes,
but explaining ANYTHING with Gravity
is a nonstarter if there is no good Gravity
theory.

Quasars have a lower frequency.
They are composed of material 
that rotate/precesses at 1:1 as compared
to our matter which rotate/precesses at 1:2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617214

On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 10:35:36 -0500, kensi wrote:

> On 2/6/2017 9:45 AM, vallor wrote:
>> Hey, I had an astrophysics question, and I understand there are
>> astrophysicists roaming these hallowed halls...
>>
>> I'm wondering if the redshift seen with quasars might be due to
>> something other than distance, such as perhaps the gravity of their
>> black holes?
>>
>> I see here:
>>
>> https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-
mystifies.html
> [snip]
> 
> The more distant quasars are younger. Quasars are black holes. Younger
> ones are less massive; they haven't had time to eat as much stuff yet.
> Smaller things oscillate faster (think of a pendulum). The farther
> quasars are both faster (because they're smaller) and slower (because of
> time dilation).
> 
> The two effects roughly cancel out, since both are roughly linear in
> distance, assuming the growth of quasar black holes is roughly linear in
> time, which is reasonable -- it would be quadratic, but for the messy
> way black holes eat, accretion disks and jets and all, and that they end
> up hollowing out a volume around them -- a low-hanging fruit effect that
> contributes to growth early on, but depletes opportunities later.

I can appreciate this, even though it seems like an amazing coincidence.  
But to my layman's brain, it seems like it would be worth at least some 
investigation into alternative explanations, because it seems like it 
could be the sort of anomaly that leads to a new discovery.


> 
> Actually, supermassive black holes gain much more mass from gradually
> accumulating gas than from accumulating stars, gas that in turn accreted
> onto their host galaxies. As the universe expands, though, the
> intergalactic medium thins out, reducing the gas available to those
> supermassive black holes.
> 
> There are further complications; see e.g.
> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/363/1/2/1300118/How-do-galaxies-
get-their-gas

Thank you for the pointer.  I'm a bit shell-shocked from reading a paper 
that is over my head, but I think I gathered that it is discussing 
differences in accretion temperatures, with "cold mode" tending to be 
further away, and applying to lower-mass galaxies.


> 
> Hawkins's own paper suggests this as one possible explanation for his
> observations, by the way.


Thank you for the response!

-- 
-v

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617226 — Re: Quasars are dying out because gravity itself is evaporating away.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Quasars are dying out because gravity itself is evaporating away.

No evidence of that claim, of course.

As the universe expands and galaxies move farther from each
other, the gravitational potential energy of the universe
actually increases.

If there is such a thing as dark energy, dark energy gets
converted to mechanical energy (motion of the galaxies),
and that gets converted to gravitational potential energy
as everything gets farther away from each other.

If there is no "dark energy", the first step is skipped, and
residual energy of motion becomes gravitational potential
energy.

If the universe is "closed" this potential energy becomes
mechanical energy of motion again and then who knows (big
crunch?).

If not, I don't see a mechanism for this energy to ever become
thermal energy in the infinitely cooling universe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617247 — Re: Entropy increases, eternally, without beginning or end.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>What happens to your precious "potential energy" after
>black holes have all evaporated away, Moroney ?

You have all the emitted photons & particles radiating away from
the BH location, with their center-of-mass still located at the
site of the BH at the time of emission.  Their CoM will be co-moving
with that of the BH (conservation of momentum) so gravitational
potential energy in total will continue to increase, unchanged.
Even when there is no longer a BH the CoM continues along the same
path, receding from the rest of the universe.

These particles may or may not encounter each other, so now we would
have to ask if protons, electrons, neutrinos and photons decay over
(infinite) time, and if so, to what.

>Entropy ratchets up, so time ticks on, relentlessly.

We see the universe get larger, infinitely, less of the energy
being thermodynamic free energy, yet still more energy becoming
gravitational potential energy (not countering entropy as it's
decreasing the energy of motion (and dark energy?)).

The total gravitational energy does have a limit, essentially
the energy corresponding to the escape velocity of everything
with respect to everything else.

Is there a process that, with infinite time, can convert this
gravitational energy (and residual motion energy) to heat energy? 
None known at this time AFAIK.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617255 — Re: Entropy increases, eternally, without beginning or end.

you must know that every property of light is wavical;
the sole exception that is commonly made is the photon-electrical effect,
or rather the electronic interaction of an atom
with what ever other atoms are propogating lightwaves

> The total gravitational energy does have a limit, essentially
> the energy corresponding to the escape velocity of everything
> with respect to everything else.
> 
> Is there a process that, with infinite time, can convert this
> gravitational energy (and residual motion energy) to heat energy? 
> None known at this time AFAIK.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617435 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On 2/6/2017 8:52 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ) built the concrete forest.
> As a result, more of us can shit in peace... yay ! !
>
> Net Net, eXergy ratchets down; i.e. entropy ratchets up;
> i.e. clocks tick _forward, not backwards.
>
> Entropy increases, eternally, without beginning or end;
> i.e. everything evaporates -- "eXergy" diminishes as entropy increases.
>
>
bullshit, Rolf. You ever gonna start thinking?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617590 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On 2/7/2017 4:31 PM, benj wrote:
> On 2/6/2017 8:52 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ) built the concrete forest.
>> As a result, more of us can shit in peace... yay ! !
>>
>> Net Net, eXergy ratchets down; i.e. entropy ratchets up;
>> i.e. clocks tick _forward, not backwards.
>>
>> Entropy increases, eternally, without beginning or end;
>> i.e. everything evaporates -- "eXergy" diminishes as entropy increases.
>>
>>
> bullshit, Rolf. You ever gonna start thinking?

How fascinating. It seems that benj considers the Second Law of 
Thermodynamics, the thermodynamic arrow of time, and the eventual heat 
death of the universe to be, and I quote, "bullshit".

I sense the distinct possibility of a VvF k0ok award in benj's future...

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617614 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:04:29 AM UTC-8, kensi wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 4:31 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 2/6/2017 8:52 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> >> "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ) built the concrete forest.
> >> As a result, more of us can shit in peace... yay ! !
> >>
> >> Net Net, eXergy ratchets down; i.e. entropy ratchets up;
> >> i.e. clocks tick _forward, not backwards.
> >>
> >> Entropy increases, eternally, without beginning or end;
> >> i.e. everything evaporates -- "eXergy" diminishes as entropy increases.
> >>
> >>
> > bullshit, Rolf. You ever gonna start thinking?
> 
> How fascinating. It seems that benj considers the Second Law of 
> Thermodynamics, the thermodynamic arrow of time, and the eventual heat 
> death of the universe to be, and I quote, "bullshit".
> 
> I sense the distinct possibility of a VvF k0ok award in benj's future...
> 
> -- 
> "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
> the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
> "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
> in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

Photons from the quasar center come to us red shifted.Good reason for that.Trebert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617652 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

The <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> aka
"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> Photons from the quasar center come to us red shifted.
Good reason for that, a "reason" which Trebert has seen 
on TV, but Glazier ,the Cretin, just parrots, and has no 
idea why they said so..... ahahahahaha.... ROTFLMAO

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617662 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

The Universal Fractal
has galaxies equal to atoms.
I still suspect that quasars
are equal to photons 
ESPECIALLY because of redshift

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617707 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

certainly, list any correspondences that you can find,
even just rotational transformations; always,
can be found efficient quantumfications
between disparate angular momenta; eh?

> I still suspect that quasars
> are equal to photons 
> ESPECIALLY because of redshift

every and all properties of light are wavish;
there is no exception, even though
it is certainly plausible to find particulate aspects, but
wo gAf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617809 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On 2/8/2017 8:08 PM, john wrote:
> The Universal Fractal
> has galaxies equal to atoms.
> I still suspect that quasars
> are equal to photons
> ESPECIALLY because of redshift
>
You call it the "fractal universe" john, and that is true because "as 
above so below", but it is also a holographic universe because every 
tiny piece contains all the information of the whole! Think about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617815 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

benj
"On 2/8/2017 8:08 PM, john wrote: 
> The Universal Fractal 
> has galaxies equal to atoms. 
> I still suspect that quasars 
> are equal to photons 
> ESPECIALLY because of redshift 
> 
You call it the "fractal universe" john, and that is true because "as 
above so below", but it is also a holographic universe because every 
tiny piece contains all the information of the whole! Think about it. "
Exactly.
All knowledge is within each of us.
We just have to clear the airwaves and listen.

I'm thinking that Quasars are mature
accretion discs containing 
photons in a condensed state

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617817 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On 2/9/2017 6:07 PM, john wrote:
> benj
> "On 2/8/2017 8:08 PM, john wrote:
>> The Universal Fractal
>> has galaxies equal to atoms.
>> I still suspect that quasars
>> are equal to photons
>> ESPECIALLY because of redshift
>>
> You call it the "fractal universe" john, and that is true because "as
> above so below", but it is also a holographic universe because every
> tiny piece contains all the information of the whole! Think about it. "
> Exactly.
> All knowledge is within each of us.
> We just have to clear the airwaves and listen.
>
> I'm thinking that Quasars are mature
> accretion discs containing
> photons in a condensed state
>
Don't know. But it is certain they are NOT in our 3D space. This 
explains their anomalous red shifts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617818 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

"benj" Jacoby <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>
 Sefton john, <johnsefton288@gmail.com> the galactic vegetable, wrote:
>> The Universal Fractal has galaxies equal to atoms.
>> I still suspect that quasars  are equal to photons
>> ESPECIALLY because of john's redshit
>>
"benj" Jacoby wrote:
> You call it the "fractal universe" john, and that is true because "as 
> above so below", but it is also a holographic universe because every 
> tiny piece contains all the information of the whole! Think about it.
>
hanson wrote:
John will NOT to that. Just like all other crackpots in s.p., led by
the <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017 >, they
all just promote their own pedestrian Weltbild.... AHAHAHA..
and AFA Universe-modeling is concerned there is a hilarious
one, leading into what you have said above, promulgated by
>
Einstein Dingleberries with/on AE's rubber trampoline where
the trajectory/deflection of mass by graviton from/of other  
masses is twice as much as the light round those loci, and 
hence asserts that light will not shine steady, but flash off and
on, onto/at the masses observed, & worse, in N-body systems
the trampoline will tremble and vibrate 'aperiodically' & and
unctrollably, a fact that is carefully overlooked & side-stepped
by all Einstein Dingleberries... ... outdated Judenphysik... but.. 
>
... like some dude said: 
Universe Models are like assholes. Everybody's got one.
( but Cretin Glazier boast to have 17 of 'em)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617852 — whence clocks whould tickenn

redshift is just because there is no pascalian\absolute vacuum;
surely, Pascal would have confirmed this, if he didn't write about it

> > You call it the "fractal universe" john, and that is true because "as 
> > above so below", but it is also a holographic universe because every 
> > tiny piece contains all the information of the whole! Think about it.

yes, holograms do alleviate the need for timennspacenn ...
freeing up time to l00k at some of Minkowski's nonsloganeering

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618771 — Re: whence clocks whould tickenn

it is the medium of free space that lowers the frequency
of lightwaves passing through it, but how?

> yes, holograms do alleviate the need for timennspacenn ...
> freeing up time to l00k at some of Minkowski's nonsloganeering

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617829 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

kensi
- show quoted text -
How fascinating. It seems that benj considers the Second Law of 
Thermodynamics, the thermodynamic arrow of time, and the eventual heat 
death of the universe to be, and I quote, "bullshit". 

I sense the distinct possibility of a VvF k0ok award in benj's future... 
----------

I would nominate BJ. He is a top shelf kook. Ghosts, esp, angels, whatever... BJ is ready to believe.

No offense BJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web