OVERESTIMATING QUASAR DISTANCES

Overestimating the distance to astronomical objects like quasars greatly affects the theoretical interpretations of both the energy generation mechanism and the projected motions of jets and proper motions. If we are to believe the standard cosmological theories, quasars are located far outside our galaxy. As a consequence of this assumption, they have impossibly high luminosities and paradoxical superluminal motions.

This vexing theoretical interpretation problem of quasar energy generation and superluminal motion is primarily a conseqence of a the bogus distance overestimation made by Schmidt (1965) based on his erroneous assumption that the emission spectra was redshifted. We have clearly demonstrated that quasars are stars within our galaxy, therefore their distance are many orders of magnitude closer than previously assumed, this solves all of the paradoxes associated with the current theories. The spectral lines are nothing more than the telltale signature of laser action in stars within our own galaxy.

OBSERVATION VERSUS THEORY

To untangle the intricate web of theory and observation, let use clearly separate what is theory and what is observation. Observations are the only data of which we can be absolutely certain, this data will not change with the coming and going of the various cosmological theories which can be as ephemeral as fashion trends. Jaschek and Jaschek (1987) mention that a rubust astronomical classification scheme must survive changes in theoretical interpretations wihout modifications. We list the observational criterion upon which such a scheme could be based.

Quasar Observations

  1. Spectra
  2. Apparent luminosity
  3. Variability as a function of time
  4. Angular proper motion of quasars
  5. Angular extent of quasar lobes
  6. Angular expansion rate of jets
Most of the other quantities are derived from theory. The cosmological interpretation corresponding to each of these respective observations are described in the following list.

Cosmological Quasar Theory

  1. Emission lines are redshifted, the quasar is extragalactic.
  2. Produce enourmous energy, can only be galaxies composed of a huge amounts of gas and/or stars.
  3. Harbour black holes in their center, impossibly high energy density.
  4. Velocities greater than 1000 times the speed of light (ignored by astronomers)
  5. Radio lobes are the most enormous objects in the universe.
  6. Superluminal jets.
Black holes are nothing more than theoretical objects required to explain the paradoxicaly large energy generation, confinement, and variability. If the quasars are assumed extragalactic there is no other way to explain the size of the radio lobes and the absolute luminosity. If we plot any of these derived theoretical quantities versus any raw observational parameter we always obtain a scatter diagram. There is no trend, the data has no correlation with onservational quantities. The redshift versus apparent magnitude is scatter diagram, and so is the largest angular size versus apparent magnitude, ditto for the spectra versus distance. In the cosmological quasar interpretation, none of the theoreticaly derived quantities mentioned above has any physical significance. On the other hand, if quasars are within within our galaxy, the situation changes completely:

Quasar Laser Star Theory

  1. Laser action produces emission lines (redshift is meaningless.)
  2. Produces same amount of energy as a star (its not a galaxy).
  3. Energy density typical of stars. (There are no black holes.)
  4. Velocities typical of galactic stars (quasars are within our galaxy)
  5. Radio lobes are of acceptable sizes, well within our galaxy.
  6. Jet velocity much less than speed of light. (Superluminal motion is a hoax)
Quasars are stars, the power of this theory is partly based on its simplicity but mostly on the predictions it makes:

Predictions :

  1. More and more quasars will demonstrate properties typical of stars within our galaxy
  2. Quasars will be found in the dense stars fields of the galactic plane.
  3. Eclipsing binary light curves will be found (see GRO J1655-40)
  4. P-Cygni profiles will be found (see QSO)
  5. More quasars with significant proper motions will be found

REAL VERSUS APPARENT MOTION

a) Superluminal jets

In the What New? section, notice the resemblence of jets from stars and quasar jets ? This is no mere coincidence, it is a dead giveaway that quasars aren't extragalactic. If we are to believe the generally accepted distance to these objects, simple trigonometry indicates that the jets are travelling faster than the speed of light : superluminal motion. Based on all of the laws of physics this is imposible and violates the laws of causality. The first reaction of any competent scientist to this paradox should have been to immediately conclude that the distance to the objects has been grossly overestimated. Unfortunately this did not occur.

Instead, highly contrived scenarios were constructed in order to patch the paradox, sweep it under the rug : Astronomers still clinging to the belief that quasar are extragalactic explain superluminal motion as an illusion created by a jet travelling very near the speed of light and directed almost along our line of sight. Kellermann (1991) has shown that all quasar jets are superluminal. Since the jets around the various quasars are randomly oriented with respect to our line of sight we would expect to find a corresponding proportion of quasars with sub-luminal jets. Except for a highly uncertain case, there are none! The superluminal motion theory rests on three assumption:

The main consequence of superluminal motion is that all quasar jets must be pointed towards us, which is shear nonsense, the theory is so full of holes that it doesn't hold water. Neither of these assumptions is justifiable, therefore from this data alone, the popular interpretation of superluminal motion can be ruled out.

If we project the apparent motion of the jets across the sky to the distance typical of stars within our galaxy, the jets don't travel faster than light. Superluminal motion is an illusion created by the error in the distance estimate, the jets are emitted by stars within our galaxy.

However there are much stronger pieces of observational data that discount superluminal motion, these are discussed in the next section.

b) Proper motion

Many stars move across the sky, the motion is imperceptible by human visual standards, but sensitive astrometric techniques are capable of meassuring these tiny motions. The observational evidence that certain quasars exceed one thousand times the speed of light clearly violates the laws of causality. This provides irrefutible proof that quasars aren't extragalactic. The laser star theory solves these paradoxes. Quasars are stars, the redshift is shown to be meaningless, there are no black holes and superluminal motion is a hoax.

LINEAR ERROR : SIZE

Overestimating quasar distances can lead to errors in estimating the size of the phenomena which is linearly proportional to the distance error, as can be seen from a simple geometric diagram: 

                           +  0
                          /|  9
                         / |  8
                        /  |  7
                       /   |  6
                      +    +  5
                     /|    |  4
                    / |    |  3
                   /  |    |  2
                  /   |    |  1
         Observer+----+----+  0
                      D    D'
                 012345678910

2) QUADRATIC ERRORS : ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE

Overestimating quasar distances can lead to errors in energy output which are magnified to the power of two compared to scale errors. The sensitivity of absolute to distance errors is the primary reason for the wild claims made of many radio galaxies, quasar and other objects that are supposedly extragalactic.

3) CUBIC ERRORS : VOLUME

Overestimating quasar distances can lead to errors in the volume of the region which is emitting radiation by a factor proportional to the cube of the distance error. This type of error has the most dramatic effect on the physics of the situation : Suppose that

ABSOLUTE VERSUS APPARENT LUMINOSITY

Why is the distance so critical to evaluating an object's absolute luminosity ? Apparent luminosity is a measurement, a quantitative observation made with a photodetector sensitive to a narrow range of colors in the spectrum. The brightness of a star is measured from our vantage point within the milky way galaxy. Apparent magnitude is raw observational data. The absolute luminosity is a theoretically derived quantity based on the distance and the apparent magnitude. Absolute luminosity is the standard way of expressing the total amount of energy radiated by an object. Distance overestimation can lead to enourmous errors in a quasar's total energy output which radically changes the physics required to explain the source of the light.

Theories may come and go like fashion trends, and the absolute luminosity of an astronomical object may go through radical changes as as each new theory gains popularity. For example recent Cepheid observations of nearby galaxies has radically changed their absolute luminosity because the distance estimate has changed while the apparent luminosity remains the same. Whenever the distance to an astronomical objects becomes highly theory dependent, the apparent luminosity should be more important that the absolute luminosity.

GEOMETRICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Unless an accurate independent distance estimate can be obtained, the absolute luminosity of astronomical objects is highly theory dependent. An error in the distance estimate is greatly magnified when it comes to determine the energy output of the star, which in turn causes serious interpretation problems when it comes to the physics by which the light is generate. To illustrate this point, the following discussion provides example of the inverse square law :

[ Diagram depicting trigonometry of distance estimation ]

Graphical representation of the inverse square law (Fix, 1995)

In this diagram the radiation emitted by a light source at the center of three concentric spheres The total energy passing through each successive sphere does not change. Only the flux does changes; the power per square meter decreases as the inverse square of the distance. We can demonstrate this with a simple experiment:

  1. If we make an observation with a photodetector placed at the distance of the inner sphere we can estimate the energy per unit area falling at that distance. The active light collecting area of our photodetector is the small square on the inner sphere.
  2. Next we move our detector twice as away from the light source on the surface of the middle sphere. Our reading has decreased by a factor of four relative to the inner sphere. This reduction in luminosity is represented by the four squares on the middle sphere, each square has the same area as our detector.
  3. Now take measurements at a ditance three times farther than the inner sphere. The power measured by our detector has decreased nine time relative to our first readings, and is depicted as 9 squares on the outer sphere.
There is an equally valid interpretation from another frame of reference which can also be useful : Consider the situation from the point of view of an observer at the center of the spheres. Let the square on the inner sphere represent a fluorescent light panel. Moving the panel twice as far would require four such panels to produce the same intensity at the center. Similarly, move the light source three times as far, to the outer sphere, and this would require nine panels of brightness equal to the first panel. If we plot the experimental results of intensity as a function of distance, we can fit the data to a an inverse square function. The amount of energy passing through the first square spreads out to four squares at twice the distance and then to nine squares at three times the distance. Hence the power per square meter is proportional to the inverse square of the distance.

If an object's distance is overestimated by a factor of two its absolute luminosity would be artificially magnified by a factor of four. If its distance is overestimated by a factor of three, the object's intrinsic luminosity would be in error by almost an order of magnitude. This 'game' can be extended by overestimating the distance by any factor, the error would over-inflate the absolute magnitude estimate by the square of that factor !

We shall put our assertion into quantitative terms with a few numerical examples; let us evaluate the error in absolute magnitude of a quasar whose distance, for the sake of argument, would typically be a few kiloparsecs (kpc).

Even the relatively modest overestimate of distance typical of Arp's theory, would require artificial assumptions such as the highly theoretical concept of a black-hole, however as of yet, no black hole has ever been conclusively confirmed observationally. The problem grows much worse if one take the redshift to indicate the distance, then the only way to reconcile the extremely high power densities is to invent exotic objects on the fringes of believability.

When does this game in empty numerology stop, scientists must learn to draw the line especially when invoking highly uncertain physics invented solely for the purpose of 'saving the phenomena' at any cost !

REFERENCES

  1. JAVA Applet on inverse square law.
  2. Arp, Halton: 1987, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, Berkeley: Interstellar Media. (also Arp's Catalog of Peculiar 'Galaxies')
  3. Fix,J.D.: 1995, Astronomy, Journey to the Cosmic Frontier p.97, Mosby-Year Book, Inc.
  4. Astronomy HyperText Book section on inverse square law.
Back to Main Paper