There need not be (and shouldn’t be) any doubt about the Hubble relation as it is most likely a kinematic effect of distance in the large universe. For example see here:

http://www.physicsbanter.com/current-physics-research-moderated/86316-conformal-transformations-hubble-parameter.html

The issue with quasars is about their physics – which according to Arp and others, is new and produces an intrinsic redshift independent of the Hubble kinematic effect. Arp’s general hypothesis is that AGNs are constantly ejecting a new form of matter, whose intrinsic redshift normalizes over time to the background Hubble kinematic value.

This new physics must clearly involve at least gravity and EM together, so one needs a joint theory to produce it – and then presumably a system in which EM and gravity are essentially mixed evolves into one (phase transition) where they settle down to their normal strength ratio of 10^39.

In my “ultrametric” (Weyl 6D) theory the new physics amounts to a state of matter and spacetime in which one cannot simply separate matter (or antimatter) as being “in” spacetime – spacetime itself is a kind of very tenuous matter in the out-regions (there is no actually empty space). The separation of the world into spacetime, matter, and antimatter is then an artifact of the phase transition that make gravity and EM seem to live apart (and allows the cosmological constant to be posited). So a quasar then is some sort of lump of “spacetimematter” which is neither matter nor antimatter and does not live “on” spacetime – a strange region where space, time, and Matter are all mixed together – thus one cannot directly compare length and time scales within this lump to those in the tenuous “outside” regions we inhabit – thus a simple explanation of intrinsic redshift – somewhat like the ordinary gravitational redshift but now coming from EM itself in its unified interaction with matter.

In this sense a quasar is the real weird thing in the Universe – black holes should no longer trouble as as (presumably) these horizons cannot form when one takes into account the unification with EM – instead, dense matter “cooks” this new type of matter right out of the (apparent) vacuum – when the cooking is done, it get ejected according to the nature of the magnetic fields that set up (see plasma cosmology for a paradigm). Thus a quasar is something like a coronal mass ejection on a colossal scale, but an ejection of this exotic new state where gravity and EM are unified.

Note also that there is not any doubt at all that quasars are not all at cosmical distances (and probably not even most of them). The photos of NGC7603 alone prove that quasars of high redshift are physically associated with low-redshift active galaxies.

-drl

Kris

I’ve got my slides “named” but not yet written for the talk. It turns out that all this is basically a result of assuming that gravitation should be defined by a velocity field on a flat background space. When you use standard Clifford algebra / Geometric algebra to do this, you get velocity boosts by a map that naturally works for all speeds, even those faster than light.

It’s basically a matter of rotating imaginary time “it” against a direction “z” by an amount proportional to the flux of gravitons. You automatically get quantized event horizons. And the Clifford algebra is just the same as the Dirac equation and the MUB calculations in my paper.

I highly recommend Arp’s book, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science. 26 reviewers at Amazon.com give it an average of 4 1/2 out of 5 stars, so I’m not the only one!

I have doubts about some of his interpretations, but think his basic observations are sound and very important.

Best, Kris

From what I can tell, belief in this sort of thing is generally proportional to how little someone knows about the subject. If you run into someone who really knows a lot about the subject they’ll be a little more hesitant over some major questions.

As an example, I’m certain of various facts about the Middle Ages which are either completely wrong or at the very least argued over at length in the literature.

Your diagram labeled “How to get zero probabilities from nonzero in QM” is similar to phasor diagrams of electrical engineering.

Of course, phasors are helices, consistent with the “corkscrew motion” of JC Maxwell and kinematics of D Hestenes.

If one does a Google search for “kinematics helix”, this type of mechanics is found in physiology and physics; the latter in QM [Zitterbewegung of Schroedinger] and detectable in gravity [Newtonian mechanics when the elliptical obits become helices as the sun moves relative to the galactic core].

I think you may be on to something which is relatively ubiquitous, but may have different force effects at different gauges. This may be some type of mathematical iteration.

The quantized event horizons may correspond to the electron shells in that these are energy levels in equilibrium. Electrons can be captured by the nucleus in k-capture or escape in Beta-radiation when not in an equlibrium shell. Perhaps something similar may happen with the red shifts of the quasars?

Now, oh my brother, before you go to Australia, please explain to me: someone once said to me that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. What the hell were they saying? Cause they said it as if it were obvious, like duh, how could you not know that, but I have not been able to get my head around it, so please explain, like you, know, you were talking to a poet and not a physicist, cause I’m only one of those things and not the other.

much love, yr sister.

“we subdivide the SDSS DR5 quasar catalogue by redshift and show that the quasar mass-luminosity distribution does not match what we should expect given our current theoretical understanding of quasar accretion. In particular, we show that instead a sub-Eddington boundary (SEB) is present in each redshift bin.”