Quasar Clusters

(No Quasar Lensing !)

The gravitational deflection of starlight near the limb of our sun is a remarkable confirmation of Einstein's general theory of relativity. However, the evidence for gravitationally lensed quasars is flawed, there are some quasar pairs with similar spectra which are claimed to be lensed objects but they have very different temporal light curve variations. Cosmologists patch this discrepancy and rescue their lensing theory by inventing microlensing, so that any random deviations can be explained. In other words : two random number generators could produce curves that would be considered 'identical' by cosmologists, given, of course, a sufficient number of micro-lensing events. By using this and other similar procedures cosmologists have given themselves so much slack that their theory could never be disproved, even in principle.

Varshni, (1982) has shown that quasars have significant proper motion therefore these objects are stars within our galaxy : This fact immediately and unconditionally discredits the lensing hypothesis.

Recent findings by H. Arp (1987) reveal that quasars with discordant redshifts often occur in tight associations or clusters on the sky. If quasar redshift was a distance indicator, this would translate to the odd picture of a universe filled with long elongated fingers pointing only towards the earth. This would mean that the earth is a 'favored' spot in the cosmos in which all these strange geometrical shapes are pointing towards only us. We are back to the ancient geocentric model of our universe!

Quasar Clusters

No. Group Name Redshift of Quasars Area
(Sq.deg.)		 Factor of Density
Over Average
z1 z2 z3 z4 z5 z6
1. Hazard 1146+1112
(~ 2 deg SE of NGC 3810)		 1.01 1.01 1.10 0.86 2.12 - 0.014 60
2. NGC 450 SW
(~ 2 deg SW of NGC 450)		 0.955 0.960 0.69 1.23 1.89 - 0.013 64
3. NGC 2639 SE
(~ 30' SE of NGC 2639)		 1.18 1.11 1.52 (0.78) - - 0.013 51
4. NGC 1097 NE
(within 24' of NGC 1097)		 3.1 0.53 1.00 0.34 0.89 (1.1) 0.04-0.02 21 - 51
5. NGC 520
(within 28' of NGC 520)		 0.33 0.92 1.20 0.63 1.41 1.47 0.05 60
Data from Halton Arp: 1987, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies

Burbidge et al. (1985, Nature, 317, 413) have calculated the chance of accidentally observing the known number of apparent quasar pairs with discordant redshift to be less than one in ten thousand!

These quasar pair/triplets etc... are nothing more than stellar associations, a very common stellar structure in our galaxy, such clusters are one of the predictions of the laser star theory. Although, quasar associations are statistically significant, cosmologists choose to ignore them when the quasars have different spectra, they are only interested in quasar clusters with similar spectra (and hence according to them similar distance). This is a perfect example of the selection effect : they pick and choose evidence only when it is favorable to their cause and disregard the discordant evidence.

According to cosmologists, when the quasars have similar spectra they are at similar distances, and when two quasars with similar spectra happen to be nearby on the sky they are gravitationally lensed. However, if we continue with their logic : Quasars with similar spectra are at the same distance even if they are far apart on the sky. In the cosmological interpretation they cannot possibly be lensed since they are so far apart, yet an unusual number of quasars have remarkably similar spectra. This leads to the paradoxical result that our universe consists of quasars distributed on thin 'shells' centered only on the earth. This evidence is disregarded, and once again, we have regressed back to the geocentric model ! ( Varshni, 1976)

If the redshift theory were correct, many quasars would be distributed on extremely thin spherical shells. This two dimensional diagram is a representation of these shells with the earth at the exact center. The increasingly redder color of the outer shells corresponds to larger redshift.

There is no independent confirmation of the distance to the quasars, only that quasars must be nearby since they have proper motions. When cosmologists claim that such and such quasars are at precisely X megaparsecs away they are just applying the standard cosmological redshift 'machine' to get the distances. We have shown that even computer simulated random quasar spectra could produce supposedly 'meaningful' distances by this technique ! (Varshni, 1974)

So, all cosmologists are doing is turning the crank on the defective redshift machine : Its just empty numerology, hocus pocus. Billion dollar telescopes have become redshift 'factories'. The standard cosmological quasar distance determination ritual is based on a faulty premise :

Quasar emission and absorption lines have been misidentified with redshifted lines. We have shown in the laser star theory that these lines correspond to quantum transitions in atomic species present in violent stellar atmospheres. In strong stellar winds high excitation conditions prevail during the rapid cooling of the expanding photospheric plasma leading to non-local thermodynamic equilibrium and population inversions. This can produce broad laser emission lines and unusual absorption lines based on the high excitation shell star mechanism. There is no need for cosmological quasar red shifts.

Also, there is a major problem with the attitude among cosmologists that any faint fuzzy object must be a galaxy. The object often claimed to be the source of gravitational lensing may not be a galaxy, but a nebulosity in our own galaxy. This explains the large scatter of points for 'galaxies' on the (m, z) diagram, and discordant redshifts (Arp, 1987). Dark matter theories are no longer required. (Varshni, 1988)

Another sad fact is that most quasar spectra taken to date are of very low resolution and of poor quality (low dynamic range, i.e. noisy). If a stellar astrophysicist were given such terrible data of a galactic star and he/she were asked to perform an analysis, they would not be able to identify most of the lines, making the spectra virtually useless even for simple classification purposes !

To summarize, objects claimed to be a gravitationally lensed quasar are nothing more than stellar associations, for which it is well known that members have almost identical spectral type because they were born at nearly the same time and in the same environment. For example : Q0957+561 is a binary star embedded in a nebulosity which gives rise to the common absorption lines and in the following paper we estimate its distance to be no more than a few hundred parsecs away. (Varshni, 1980)

Kundié et al. (1995, ApJ. 455, L5) made photometric observations of this QSO from Dec 1994 to May 1995. They discovered a unique event in quasar A which they claim could not be due to microlensing. They predict that the same event should show up in quasar B with a suitable time delay (approximately the first half of 1996). We predicted that this event would not occur and so far it hasn't.

The four cloverleaf quasars and other multiple quasar systems are no different than the Trapezium quadruple, they are star cluster associations. There are several amateur astronomer projects to monitor quasar association for relative proper motion with CCD cameras.

References

Laser Stars Home