The Quasar RedShift Controversy

We present a brief survey of some non-cosmological redshift evidence not often discussed by the astronomical community. We explain the reasoning behind each observation, some of the suppositions involved and the most often cited defence. The simplest solution to all these paradoxes is based on the plasma laser star interpretation of quasars.

Significant quasar proper motion
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: implies transverse velocities exceeding one thousand times the speed of light. In one case star motion is perpendicular to a pair of jets ! This indicates that quasars are much closer than previously claimed, their motion is similar to other galactic stars. There is no redshift, the emission lines are due to laser action.
- Defence: Claim data is faultly because it does not agree with your theory or ignore data.
P-Cygni emission lines present in some quasar spectra
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: Indicates common emissions and absorptions features seen in rapidly expanding stellar atmospheres.
- Defence: Ignore data.
Helium discontinuities present in some quasar spectra
- Supposition : None.
- Because: Indicates a significant population of helium atoms in metastable states, also indicating a rapidly expanding stellar atmosphere.
- Defence: Ignore data, or call it distributed z absorption, which is no better than fitting an inifinite number of meaningless epicycles to the data.
Shell star absorption lines present in some quasar spectra
- Supposition : None.
- Reason: Indicates an extended stellar atmosphere, it is a star ! Cosmologists claim a multitude of absorbing clouds at various redshifts between us and the quasar, however Varshni has shown in numerous QSO's that the number and distribution of such clouds are insignificantly different than chance coincidence.
- Defence: Ignore warnings.
Wolf-Rayet emission lines found in the spectra of certain quasars
- Supposition : None.
- Reason: Quasars share similarities with the stellar atmospheres of these hot stars because quasars are stars !
- Defence: Ignore coincidences.
Laser stars are detected by Hubble and Kuiper Airborne observatories
- Supposition: Strong emission lines are amplified spontaneous emission
- Reason: implies that other object with unusually strong optical emission lines such as quasars may also be laser stars.
- Defence: Ignore laser interpretation of quasar spectra.
Most quasars are naked! HST QSO images appear exactly like stars
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: Stellar appearance is strong evidence that they _are_ stars
- Defence: Claim data is faulty or come up with even more complicated theoretical patches, until the next 'surprise'.
Quasar redshift versus apparent magnitude is random scatter diagram
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: implies that the redshift is an empty number without physical significance
- Defence: Invent highly improbable evolutionary mechanism which _exactly_ compensates for the randomness.
Simulated or 'fake' quasar spectra can be assigned a reasonable redshift
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: computer simulations imply that the redshift assigned to quasar spectra are completely arbitrary random numbers.
- Defence: Ignore and keep the redshift 'factories' pumping out papers.
Quasar with different z often found clustered together
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: indicates they are stellar associations within our galaxy
- Defence: Claim chance coincidence for differing z clusters and invent gravitational lensing for quasars with similar spectra. However, the time variations of such quasar clusters are sufficiently different for this top-heavy interpretation to be discredited. Yet another patch on top of patch claims an arbitrary sequence of gravitational pertubations creates 'microlensing' to explain the intensity variation discrepancy, and so on etc... this patching process never ends !
Superluminal motion
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: If the quasars are assumed extremely distant many components of their ejections would appear to be exceeding the speed of light. This violates the laws of causality and indicates that these objects are much closer than expected.
- Defence: Claim it to be an illusion in which the jet is pointing towards us. This interpretation is non-sense as the number of cases greatly exceeds what one would expect from randomly oriented jets. (their 'patch' for this one is to make another assumption and claim that perpendicular jets are invisible, patch upon patch etc..!) In several cases of super-luminal motion the jets have been proven to lie almost perpendicular to the line of sight, completely destroying the initial assumption.
Many quasars are extremely variable.
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: indicates active region is smaller than the speed of light times the variability period. (The time light takes to traverse the region) The light curves resemble variable stars, and so quasars may be stars within our galaxy, brightness and color places them on the HR diagram along hot white dwarf stars. Higher surface temperatures causes Hydrogen atoms to become more transparent to UV, hence the UV excess.
- Defence:Claim super-high power density to explain variability, light sources are powered by immense black holes. This interpretation raises innumerable paradoxes covered more fully on the web page.
Quasar jets similar to the jets from other stars in our galaxy.
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: Quasars have properties similar to high velocity molecular gas outflows surrounding young stellar objects, slow nova and planetary nebula outbursts and some Wolf-Rayet.
- Defence:Monster black-hole AGN theory seems almost 'mythical' in proportions (one thing is for certain, the physics involved will never be tested in the lab)
Redshift quantization
- Supposition: Statisticaly significant peaks
- Reason: laser emission lines don't show a continuous wavelength shift only a fixed set of lines at discrete wavelengths. A symptom of this underlying behavior is the observational evidence of redshift quantization, strong evidence that the redshift interpretation is incorrect.
- Defence:If we accept the red-shift theory, quantization implies that the quasars would be arranged on spherical shells with Earth as the center. The Earth would be at the center of the universe ! (Sounds familiar Eh?)
Variable quasar emission line intensity ratios
- Supposition: None.
- Reason: Very large changes in relative intensity has been observed between some lines in quasars supporting the plasma laser star interpretation and the origin of the emission lines as laser action.
- Defence: One of Schmidt's (1965) criteria for assuming that the emission lines where redshifted was that the lines have a very specific line intensity ratio, from which he deduced that the line series was from hydrogen. One of the assumptions that led to the quasar redshift interpretation is no longer valid, the variations cannot be explained by the conventional cosmological quasar model.
Stars older than the universe paradox
- Supposition: Accurate dating of stars and correct Cepheid distance calibration
- Reason: You cannot be older than your parents ! This contradictory evidence is typical of what astronomers can expect from future observations. There is no cosmological redshift.
- Defence: Complicate the Big-Bang model even further.
Galaxies older than the universe paradox
- Supposition: Accurate dating of stars
- Reason: Same as above. Galaxy 53W091 supposedly formed 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang however it contains stars older than 3.5 billion years. As predicted, more cracks are appearing; the currently accepted model of the universe is looking increasingly sick.
- Defence:Claim faulty data.

We conclude that redshifts are empty numbers without physical significance. Therefore it is not the redshift which needs re-interpretation or yet another convenient facelift; the spectra itself must be carefully re-examined using basic principles without preconceptions. The simplest solution is that quasars are laser stars within our galaxy.

Due to the general lack of knowledge of plasma lasers, astronomers in the early sixties could perhaps be forgiven for their incorrect interpretation of quasar spectra. Today however, these lasers are well understood and ignorance of the laws of nature is no excuse for sloppy spectra interpretation. Yet astronomers still persist in overlooking laser action ?

Laser Stars Home