This issue has been raised (by me) previously and James R., responded to challenges (by me) of the mathematical treatment used to adjust "Proper Velocity" of observed Quasar material being expelled at 5,200 c.

There remains a question which I do not believe was answered.

My charge was that the treatment is nothing more than an algorithum used to adjust observation to make it fit Relativity and the v = c limit rather than use the observation to explore correcting the concept of Relativity to make it fit observation.

Basically the issue came down to if the mathematics work and keep Relativity whole then that is the proper thing to do.


Question:

While the mathematical process does reduce v>c to some value less than c, it does not explain the following. I await an explanation.

Given a hypothetical case (and I'll just plug in numbers and not do an actual calculation here) where proper velocity is 5,200 c and the treament results in a calculated v = 0.997 c, why is it not the case that we also see material from the same event approaching us at 0.997 c?

My arguement was that proper velocity is an actual correct velocity viewed from a position where the velocity is not relative to us and hence is visiable but that componets approaching from a vector where proper velocity exceeds v = c relative to the observer then we would no longer see them.

That is the case in reality. We see 5,200 c orthogonally (it is adjusted to 0.997 c) but we see no 0.997 c component from the same Quasar event?????

What is your explanation?


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
...proper velocity is 5,200 c...I thought that proper velocity always satisfies:
|u| = c
Where u is the proper velocity

For purposes of calculation (to show this geometrical property in terms of algebra):
u is explicitly u^μ in component form
u^μ = d/dτ(x^μ)
|u| = sqrt[u_μu^μ]
= sqrt[g_μνu^μu^ν]

If we just consider Minkowski space-time, then g_μν = η_μν and:
|u| = sqrt[(d/dτ(x⁰))² - sum{(d/dτ(xⁱ))²}]
= sqrt[c²(dt/dτ)² - |v|²]
= c*sqrt[γ² - β²]
...
Damn, that's really hard to keep track of in html. I'm going to have to post this and then edit it.

I think that there is something wrong with this, but for some reason (i.e. it's saturday) I can't put my mind on it. I will present a geometrical arguement:

In the rest frame of the particle, |u| = c for sure. Since |u| is a scalar (it is a contraction of a covariant and contravariant 4-vector), then |u| is independent of the reference frame/coordinate system. Therefore, |u| should always be observed as = c, from no matter what observation point. Is there some influence of gravity here?




Anyway, am I mistaken (about the underlying idea)?

errandir,

Then we find that in terms of the velocity of light c, the transverse velocities would correspond to
Vt = 760, 1000, 5200 and 2300 times the speed of light !

for PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 respectively.

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/NewMotion.html



Then they proceed to claim that since it can't be true that the Red Shift concept is flawed!

Can you imagine the Red Shift concept being off enough to cause 5,200 c. I can't.




http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/motion/proper.html

The apparent change of position of a star on the celestial sphere is called the proper motion of the star.

Angular Motion on the Celestial Sphere
Proper motion is usually denoted by the Greek symbol "mu", and is a velocity that is usually quoted in units of seconds of arc per year. The following image illustrates proper motion.


The proper motion of a star on the celestial sphere.





I'm searching for the original paper that did the Relavistic algorithum and will post it as soon as I have retrieved it.

I had several concerns about it, one was the following.

1 - It began in the first paragraph stating "Since Relativity does not allow for such motion we must DEVISE an answer". (emphasis added by me)




Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by errandir
Anyway, am I mistaken (about the underlying idea)?

|u| almost always means the magnitude of the 3-vector, not the 4-vector. i am sure that is what MacM is talking about.

<i>Edit: "almost almost"??</i>

errandir,

Here is the math link.

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum-math1.htm


My second concern with this is if you look at the diagram the actual Quasar material is being projected along the d=vt line to t2. We are observing that motion orthogonally along Y1 vtSin (theta).

How do they justify concluding the velocity along the t2 line is actually less than v = c when the observed velocity (proper velocity) Y1 calculates to 5,200 c! By standard trig the t2 line v = d/t would be even greater not less.

I just don't buy this treatment. It does not answer my first question. If 5,200 c is actually only 0.997 (or any sub-FTL velocity) then why do we not see that sub-velocity in material coming from the same event when that motion is directed toward us?

Are we to believe all FLT activity only occur orthogonal? I wouldn't think so.

That means when a Quasar errupts and you get FTL material orthogonally you should also get FTL material directed toward us. If you adjust the FTL velocity down to some sum-luminal velocity then you need to explain why no such sub-luminal velocity material is not also observed coming toward us or recceding away from us during the same event.

My contentions is still that the 5,200 c is a true velocity and that it is only observed because it is not relative to us and being FTL is why we don't see it (at any velocity) coming at us.



Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.


Edited to change wording from "observation" to "activity"

To what is the celestial sphere fixed? (What is the reference?)

errandir,

It appears that the sphere is relative to each observers vantage point.

That is as you look out over the horizon and turn 360 degrees you are viewing a circular plane within the sphere.



Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

wouldn't that mean that the stars (on the average) traverse large arcs every day? (i.e. the sun and moon traverse about 360 deg of arc every day)

It seems to me that this is a variation on another thread, and perhaps has been discussed.

The URL posted leads to some (I assume) correct mathematics based on some simple assumptions, including the Relativistic limit of the speed of a object whose rest mass is not zero.

In this context, the explanation at that site might not be very convincing, especially since it is not a trivial analysis relying on intuitively obvious notions.

Perhaps the following thought experiment might help understand this type of observation.

Imagine a star ten light years from earth. Such a distance can be determined by parallax computations. For some types of stars at that distance, the distance can be determined by astrophysical computations relating to known intrinsic brightness and observed brightness.

No red shift or relativistic considerations are required to determine the distance to such a star.

What would be observed from Earth if an explosive event ejected an object from that star toward us at almost the velocity of light (say .999c)? Ten years after it left, it would be observed at its starting point ten light years away. It would have traveled 9.99 light years away when observed at its starting point. .01*.999 = .009 99 years later, it would be observed momentarily as a meteor in our atmosphere.The object seemed to have traveled ten light years in .009 99 years, assuming the observers survived the impact or did the calculations prior to the impact.

The above is an apparent speed of approximately 1001c (10 / .00999).

When relativist speeds are involved, what you see is not a good approximation to what is happening. Our intuition is conditioned by our experiences with non-relativistic speeds.

The above makes no relativist assumptions. It is exactly what a classical physicist would expect to see. Using classical concepts, he would be certain that the apparent speed was an illusion.

While you might be able to make up other arguments to refute relativity, arguments based on apparent speed are not valid.

The above having been said, relativity is backed up by lots of experimental evidence. Those attempting to refute it at this forum do not have a good understand of modern physics and the experimental evidence supporting it.

Te experts recognize some flaws in current theories. However, the advances leading to a better understanding will not be made by those who do not understand current theories.

Excepting cosmology, improved theories of physics will not be much different from current theories. The current theories (except in cosmology) provide incredibly accurate descriptions of observable experimental evidence. Any new theory must be consistent with those descriptions, not leaving much wiggle room.

Dinosaur,

Your example isn't incorrect but it is not a description of the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is material viewed to move orthogonal (horizontally) away from the Quasar core. The measured motion between the core and the ejecta is 5,200 c. There is no relative velocity to us in this case. It is a direct measure of motion across the night sky.

This isn't an issue of overturning Relativity but an issue of is it more appropriate to modify what we see to make observation fit Relativity or is it more appropriate to modify Relativity to fit observation.

My position is the latter.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

If the motion across the night sky is measured in deg/T, then what does it have to do with c?

errandir,

This is not a direct motion measured in one night but a collection of data over time that sees the motion between the ejecta and the Quasar core. Visualize a right triangle.

The Adjacent is the distance to the quasar, the Opposite is the distance the ejecta has moved over a given amount of time.

v = d/t and d/t for some quasars ejecta is thousands of times as fast as c.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM: In spite of some of the nonsense you post, I do not think you are stupid, although you might be so stubborn that you have deliberately avoided a critical analysis of some readily available explanations pertinent to the subject at hand. I will assume that you are merely ignorant of those explanations and provide one for you to analyze.

The thought experiment I previously posed is applicable to the subject at hand, but you are unwilling or unable to recognize that it is pertinent. It provided a clear example of an illusion due to an object moving at relativistic speed, but you objected to the apparent or proper motion not being perpendicular to the line of sight.

The following example relates to proper or apparent motion along the celestial sphere.

Consider a star 1000 light years away which ejects an object at .999c along the hypotenuse of a (5, 12, 13) right triangle. Assume the 12 leg is along the line of sight from the star to the earth and the 5 leg is perpendicular to the line of sight. You might need a diagram to follow this thought experiment. At time = 0, the object departs. At time = 13.013 years (13 / .999), it has traveled 13 light years along the hypotenuse and explodes, sending light toward Earth. At time = 1000 years, the object is observed as it starts its journey. At time = 1001.013 years (988 + 13.013), the explosion is observed. The apparent or proper motion is 5 light years. The object appears to have traveled 5 light years in 1.013 years, or at a speed of 4.936cThere are some minor approximations in the above calculations. In particular, The explosion is observed along the hypotenuse of a right triangle with legs 5 and 988 light years, so it takes about 988.1265 years instead of 988 years to reach the observer on Earth.

Once again what you see is not what actually happened, which is almost always the case in dealing with relativistic speeds. I believe that other right triangles (say 20, 99, 101) would result in higher apparent speeds.

Note that no relativistic concepts are involved in the above. A classical physicist of the 19th century would agree with the above thought experiment, and conclude that proper or apparent motion can provide an illusion of faster than light speed. Of course, he would not deny the possibility of FTL speed because he would be ignorant of modern relativity theory. Thus, he might assume that some observed objects were traveling FTL, but he would not consider the observed speeds to be valid evidence of FTL objects.

You are arguing against relativity with not enough knowledge of modern physics and the experimental evidence supporting it.

Even intelligent people can be misled by their intuition, which has been conditioned by experiences of the world of our senses, which approximates classical physics to a high degree of precision.

Dinosaur,

I guess I should first thank you for the comment that you don't think I am stupid, just ignorant. :D

Now to respond to your post.

Consider a star 1000 light years away which ejects an object at .999c along the hypotenuse of a (5, 12, 13) right triangle. Assume the 12 leg is along the line of sight from the star to the earth and the 5 leg is perpendicular to the line of sight. You might need a diagram to follow this thought experiment.

ANS: I have a problem right here. Where do you get your 5, 12, 13 right angle.? If the Quasar is 1,000 ly away the "Adjacent Side" is 1,000. The ejecta moving at 0.999c will have actually moved 999 ly along the (Opposite Side) before we see the event; which means the hypotneuse is 1,418.5 ly.

At time = 0, the object departs.

ANS: But more importantly we see the event 1,000 years after the fact but we see it along the adjacent side for the initial explosion. Not from the hypoteneus as you say. So the Quasar along the Adjacent Side is our starting point.

If v is the movement of the Quasar and u is the movement of the ejecta. And we set v = 0 (or rest reference) and look at the motion of u relative to v then (u+v)/(1+(vu/c^2) becomes:

(.999 + 0)/(1 +(.999* 0)/c^2)) = .999/1 = .999 c.

There is no justification for altering this view.

At time = 13.013 years (13 / .999), it has traveled 13 light years along the hypotenuse and explodes, sending light toward Earth.

ANS: I again don't follow your choice of 5, 12 and 13 right angle.


At time = 1000 years, the object is observed as it starts its journey.

ANS: Yes and is viewed at the origin of the Quasar along the adjacent side of the right angle. Even though the ejecta has already moved along the Opposite side we don't start to see that until later as the information flows in.



At time = 1001.013 years (988 + 13.013), the explosion is observed.

ANS: The explosion is observed at 1,000 yrs and in line with the Quasar. We don't see the explosion as being some diatance from the quasar, it is of and at the quasar.


The apparent or proper motion is 5 light years.
The object appears to have traveled 5 light years in 1.013 years, or at a speed of 4.936c

ANS: Not so. 1,005 years later we will see the ejecta has moved 4.995 ly along the Opposite Side of our diagram. And we would calculate a proper velocity of 0.999 c. No conflict no problem.


The problem is they have taken cases where the proper velocity is observed (along the opposite side of the diagram) as being 5,200 c and have tinkered with that to cause it to become less than c.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM: Either you are joking or you just are not willing to analyze the description I gave you. I will try to provide a clearer description of the thought experiment.

Perhaps it is not a matter of your being unwilling to draw a diagram and concentrate on the analysis. Perhaps you really are stupid instead of merely ignorant.

BTW: If you understand English, ignorant means lacking knowledge. It is only intended as an insult by people who do not know the meaning of the word.

It can be said that even the most intelligent and well educated are ignorant of subject matter they have not studied. For example, many mathematicians are ignorant of ancient history, while many history majors are ignorant of mathematics. It can be said without fear of contradiction that everybody is ignorant of a few facts and some areas of knowledge.

The thought experiment I provided in my previous post was clear to anybody with a functioning brain, a knowledge of English, and a knowledge of some simple arithmetic and elementary logic, assuming that said person was willing to focus his attention and analyze the experiment.

It was a specific example of an illusion implying that an object is moving fater than the speed of light. It explains how that illusion can occur. It does not require any relativist assumptions or analysis.

The (5, 12, 13) triangle was chosen as an example. Almost any right triangle would be okay, but a different choice would result in an analysis with different numbers. The triangle was used to describe the direction of an object ejected from a star.

Draw a diagram of a triangle with a hypotenuse 13 years long, one leg 12 light years long, and the other leg 5 light years long. I assume that you are capable of doing that.

Now imagine the 12 light year leg aligned along the path from a star 1000 light years from the earth. One end is at the star, the other end is 12 light years closer to the Earth. I think and hope you are bright enough to understand up to this part of the description.

Now imagine the 5 light year leg aligned perpendicular to the line from the star to the Earth. If you were with me up to the previous paragraph, this should not be difficult to visualize.

I hope you are drawing a diagram and warming up your analysis capabilities (if any) instead of working on retorts to what I have said so far.

If you are with me so far, consider the following.Suppose the star ejects an object along the hypotenuse of the triangle, and imagine that the object is traveling at .999c

Assign zero as the time when the object was ejected.

Imagine that the object explodes after traveling 13 light years.

The explosion occurs in year 13.013 (10 / .999) on the time scale we are using.

Note we are observing the object, not the star which ejected it.I hope you understand the above scenario, and consider it a valid thought experiment which can be analyzed.

Now consider what would be observed from the Earth. In year 1000, the object would be observed being ejected from the star. As mentioned above, the explosion occurs in year 13.013 (approximately) and that is when light due to the explosion starts toward Earth. At the time of the explosion, the object is approximately 12 light years closer to the Earth than it was when it started on its journey. Thus the light from the explosion will arrive 988 years after the explosion. The observer on Earth will see the explosion in year 1001.013 (988 + 13.013). The proper or apparent motion of the object will be 5 light years, even though it has actually traveled 13 light years.What is the apparent speed of the object?It is 5 / 1.013 = 4.936c (approximately), even though it actually traveled at .999cThe above is a specific example of how an object can appear to move faster than the velocity of light, when it actually moved at less than c.

The above is how a classical physicist would analyze the thought experiment. On the basis of the above analysis, he would not consider apparent speeds in excess of c to be valid evidence of FTL.

I doubt than MacM will accept the above, but I hope that others will agree with the analysis.

Dinosaur,


Perhaps it is not a matter of your being unwilling to draw a diagram and concentrate on the analysis. Perhaps you really are stupid instead of merely ignorant.

BTW: If you understand English, ignorant means lacking knowledge. It is only intended as an insult by people who do not know the meaning of the word.


ANS: I was indeed aware of the definition and was not offended, that was the reason for the :D.


I doubt than MacM will accept the above, but I hope that others will agree with the analysis.

It is not that I disagree with your presentation. Your presentation doesn't seem to fit the description of the problem.

Material is not being ejected and some years later explodes. It is the explosion from the Quasar at t = 0. That makes my diagram correct and yours hypotherical and off point.

The diagram we are analyzing is 1,000 ly long (adjacent) between the earth and Quasar by 5 ly after the explosion along the (Opposite) which makes the hypotenuse 1,000.012 ly long.

There simply is no delay between the ejecta and the onset of the observered explosion. We simply see the sequence of events as the explosion 1,000 years later and the motion of the ejecta after 1,005 years and compute its proper velocity along the diagram I outlined.

Do you disagree with that? If not how do you explain such observations showing a motion along the (Opposite Side) of the diagram of 5,200 c?

This link is to Tables of Quasar motion. The milliarc motion (along the (Opposite) side of the diagram when considering the distance (Adjacent) side of the diagram compute numerous Quasars that have ejecta going FTL.

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/absolute.html


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM: Using concepts of classical physics, it is very obvious to me that apparent FTL speed is not evidence of actual FTL. I am not alone in this view.

You seem to think that if the proper motion of an object is faster than the speed of light it is actually moving FTL. This is an erroneous interpretation of the evidence, but further argument is futile.

Your beliefs are based on faith rather than logical analysis of evidence. Your mindset is that of a religious fanatic, not the midset of a scientist.

Originally posted by MacM
Visualize a right triangle.

The Adjacent is the distance to the quasar, the Opposite is the distance the ejecta has moved over a given amount of time.How do you know that these paths form a right triangle?

First you speak proper motion (angular motion on the celestial sphere). Then you speak linear motion at points in space that are quite arbitrary. Furthermore, you seem to contradict yourself with your definition of the celestial sphere.

One of us is very confused by the other.

Dinosaur,

MacM: Using concepts of classical physics, it is very obvious to me that apparent FTL speed is not evidence of actual FTL. I am not alone in this view.

You seem to think that if the proper motion of an object is faster than the speed of light it is actually moving FTL. This is an erroneous interpretation of the evidence, but further argument is futile.

Your beliefs are based on faith rather than logical analysis of evidence. Your mindset is that of a religious fanatic, not the midset of a scientist.

ANS: It does seem that keeping your responses on point results in your above statements. I am afraid it is just the opposite. It is the Relavistists that are operating on "Faith" not science.

There simply is no justification for what has been done to direct observation other than to keep Relativity whole.

After all this you have not anwered the one major point in my counter arguement.

?: Assuming you are correct and Relativity mandates the mathematical treatment of the Quasar data. Why do you not see components of such ejecta in a direct relavistic way beween the earth and the Quasar?

That is if there is 5,200 c proper motion, which Relavistically is dumbed down to .999 c to keep Reltivity whole. Why do you not also see 0.999c ejecta coming at earth from the same explosive event?

As usual Relativists have covered their tails mathematically in regard to the direct observation of such motion but you have failed to close the loop. There is a loop hole in your logic and it shows who is correct here. Unless you can explain why such an event only and always produces ejecta orthogonal to earth your view falls short of truth. Why would you oppose correcting Relativity. I am not saying abandon Relativity but do it right.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

errandir,


How do you know that these paths form a right triangle?

First you speak proper motion (angular motion on the celestial sphere). Then you speak linear motion at points in space that are quite arbitrary. Furthermore, you seem to contradict yourself with your definition of the celestial sphere.

One of us is very confused by the other.

ANS: Clearly you jest. How does one ever know the direction of motion? You calculate it. If the motion is not orthogonal one also sees the change in distance relative to us.

It is not I that have stated "Orthogonal" motion is 5,200 c. It is they that have said this "Orthogonal" motion appears FTL but requires mathematical treatment to make it fit the predictions of Relativity.

My point is by what stretch of imagination does our view of the universe require that we alter our direct observation to make it fit Relativity vs correcting Relativity to properly describe observation?

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:The following is misleading.My point is by what stretch of imagination does our view of the universe require that we alter our direct observation to make it fit Relativity vs correcting Relativity to properly describe observation?Classical analysis is sufficient to show how a distant object moving at relativist speed can seem to be going faster than light. You do not seem to understand the classical analysis provided by my previous posts.

The appeal to relativist concepts is required to imply that no apparent FTL motion is actual FTL motion. Relativistic concepts are not required to show that apparent FTL motion is not certain evidence of actual FTL motion.

You are being absurd.Unless you can explain why such an event only and always produces ejecta orthogonal to earth your view falls short of truth.The phenomena occur millions/billions of light years away.

Approximately linear jets as opposed to spherical shaped ejecta have a low probability of being directed along our line of sight. Such a jet millions/billions of light years away is almost always a vector with a component orthogonal to line of sight and a component parallel to line of sight. The orthogonal motion can often be observed with an optical or radio telescope. The motion toward us can usually only be detected via red/blue shift observations.

The above explanation for orthogonal appearing ejecta is obvious, and does not require any relativistic analysis.

Your question is like asking why nebula always appears to be a 2D irregular circle-like shape of expanding gas, instead of the 3D irregular sphere-like shape which it really is. Perhaps you believe that they are 2D shapes because that is what they look like from the Earth.

Thousands of years ago, the best minds believed that the visible stars were on a celestial sphere because all observable motions seemed orthogonal to the line of sight. We have learned a lot in the past few thousand years. You do not seem to have caught up with the rest of the scientists.

Do you wonder why we never observe a star moving toward us? In almost every case, we must rely on red or blue shifts to determine that a star has a component of motion in our direction, while the component orthogonal to line of sight is often observable.

BYW: If you point a camera lens toward the night sky and leave the lens open for several hours, do you know what the resulting image looks like? It looks like a lot of circular arcs centered on Polaris. This is due to the rotation of the Earth, not the motion of the stars, which do not orbit Polaris. I thought you might be interested in learning this interesting fact about apparent stellar motion not being what it seems to be to an Earth bound observer.

Are you really that dense or just that stubborn?

None are so blind an those who refuse to look. None seem so dumb as those who refuse to think analytically. Faith and intuition are a poor substitute for logical analysis when dealing with modern rather than classical physics.

Dinosaur,

MacM:The following is misleading.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is by what stretch of imagination does our view of the universe require that we alter our direct observation to make it fit Relativity vs correcting Relativity to properly describe observation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANS: Not so. The only thing misleading here is the repeated attempts to talk about motions other than those in the initial post which is orthogonal ejecta from Quasars that has "Proper Velocities" upto 5,200 c.

You have tried to introduce other scenarios where ejecta is expelled and moves for several years and then explodes giving the illusion of having moved FTL. I'm talking about ejecta from an explosion which is measured as being FTL.

Classical analysis is sufficient to show how a distant object moving at relativist speed can seem to be going faster than light. You do not seem to understand the classical analysis provided by my previous posts.

ANS: As I have already said you are creating a new set of motions to discuss. Lets discuss ejecta with orthogonal proper velocity of 5,200 c.


The appeal to relativist concepts is required to imply that no apparent FTL motion is actual FTL motion. Relativistic concepts are not required to show that apparent FTL motion is not certain evidence of actual FTL motion.

You are being absurd.


ANS:I have granted that the relavistic mathematical treatment of the above results in v < c and is consitant within the frame work of relavistic mathematics. But the origin of that math was based in the first instance of stating that "since Relativity does not allow for FTL motion therefore we must devise an explanation", says a great deal.

My point is there are other explanations and the v = c limit being imposed using relativity is not a sound basis for altering the observation without considering that perhaps it is Relativity that needs altering.

Altering direct observation to fit relativity is absurd.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you can explain why such an event only and always produces ejecta orthogonal to earth your view falls short of truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The phenomena occur millions/billions of light years away.

Approximately linear jets as opposed to spherical shaped ejecta have a low probability of being directed along our line of sight. Such a jet millions/billions of light years away is almost always a vector with a component orthogonal to line of sight and a component parallel to line of sight. The orthogonal motion can often be observed with an optical or radio telescope. The motion toward us can usually only be detected via red/blue shift observations.

ANS: Please cite an example of direct observation of FTL ejecta where you also see that ejecta parallel to the earth as having Red or Blue shift. There is none. When you see FTL ejecta orlthogonally you see no ejecta parallel to earth. that is one of my points. If you can show otherwise then you win and I lose but I don't believe you can.

The above explanation for orthogonal appearing ejecta is obvious, and does not require any relativistic analysis.

ANS: I agree but I don't think you meant to say this. Orthogonal ejecta observed as FTL should not be treated relavistically but it has been and that is my objection. Being orthogonal there is no relavistic motion to earth and Relativity simply should not be applied. Now if you want to talk about the relative velocity between the view of the ejecta and the Quasar that would be another matter. I wouldn't agree with it but that at least would be in the realm of current Relativity.

Altering the measured velocity of orthogonal motion where there is no relative motion to earth is not Relativity. It is Fudge Factor Algorithum. Tell us exactly how you justify applying relavistic mathematics to a motion where there is no relative velocity. THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE.


Your question is like asking why nebula always appears to be a 2D irregular circle-like shape of expanding gas, instead of the 3D irregular sphere-like shape which it really is. Perhaps you believe that they are 2D shapes because that is what they look like from the Earth.

ANS: No it isn't. The question is straight forward. How do you justify altering a direct observation using relavistics mathematical treatment when there is no relative velocity involved?

Orthogonal means no relative motion parallel to earth.

Thousands of years ago, the best minds believed that the visible stars were on a celestial sphere because all observable motions seemed orthogonal to the line of sight. We have learned a lot in the past few thousand years. You do not seem to have caught up with the rest of the scientists.

ANS: I would have to say that is wishful thinking on your part.

Based on responses thus far I would think that some scientist are having a hard time keeping up with the signifigance of current observation. They are to busy patching pot holes in current theory.

Do you wonder why we never observe a star moving toward us? In almost every case, we must rely on red or blue shifts to determine that a star has a component of motion in our direction, while the component orthogonal to line of sight is often observable.

ANS: Never wondered that at all and I am aware that we measure such motion via red and blue shift. Yes the orthogonal view is "Direct" observation as I have stated. It is indeed more reliable that red or blue shift. So if we have a reliable observation where there is no relative velocity to us, why do you want to apply a new relavistic algorithum to adjust the observation? Because it doesn't fit Relativity? Is that why? I can think of no other reason. My point is that is the wrong thing to do.

Relativity should be made fit the direct observation not the observation fit Relativity.

BYW: If you point a camera lens toward the night sky and leave the lens open for several hours, do you know what the resulting image looks like? It looks like a lot of circular arcs centered on Polaris. This is due to the rotation of the Earth, not the motion of the stars, which do not orbit Polaris. I thought you might be interested in learning this interesting fact about apparent stellar motion not being what it seems to be to an Earth bound observer.

ANS: You may think, or you may want to make others think, you are talking down to some low level intelligence but frankly it seems I have a better grasp of what is reality than you at this point.

Now in your case I am reasonably certain it isn't a lack of intelligence, it is an intrignent attitude defending the theory that you were taught and like. But if you were to simply take a deep breath and stop defending Relativity and any action that they want to take with it and look at the issue, I believe you have sufficient sense to see matters for what they really are.


Are you really that dense or just that stubborn?

ANS: To this I must say vice-versa.

None are so blind an those who refuse to look. None seem so dumb as those who refuse to think analytically. Faith and intuition are a poor substitute for logical analysis when dealing with modern rather than classical physics.

ANS: Good advice you should take it. I have looked, you are not looking, you are getting irritated because I won't let you move the goal post.

The goal post is "Orthogonal" motion (no Relative Velocity parallel to earth) that is a direct measure of velocities not just barely FTL but 5,200 times c. And you want to adjust this observation using relavistic mathematical algorithums? Wrong answer.

Go back an re-think this issue and let us know why such alteration of a direct observation is justified.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

I still think that there's a major communication barrier.

MacM: I have been unable to find any observed motion as fast as 5200c.

What is the source of this number?

I have found some refereneces to apparent velocities exceeding c, but have found no reference claiming an apparent speed beyond about 10c.

Dinosaur,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we find that in terms of the velocity of light c, the transverse velocities would correspond to Vt = 760, 1000, 5200 and 2300 times the speed of light !

for PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 respectively.

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/NewMotion.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See my 2nd post in this series. The conclusion of this discovery was that Red Shift is a false indicator. But I find it difficult to believe Red Shift error could mean that magnitude of mis-measure.

From the above list Quasar LB 8956 has ejecta with a proper velocity of 5,200 c.!

Here is a link to a table of Quasar Proper velocities in descending order.

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/absolute.html

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM, I don't see where they are claiming a proper ejectile speed
of 5200c. They are claiming that the Quasars are MUCH closer than
their supposed distance using red shift as an indicator. They arrived
at the 5200c figure by measuring angles the matter traveled at the
supposed distance indicated by red shift. If the Quasars were only
a few thousand light years away instead of several million, the speeds measured would be totally different. I, personally, have
always had questions accepting red shift as an accurate indicator
of distance. But I am not a physicist, so my personal opinions are
mere speculation. But if red shift is not an indicator of distance, it
would open up a LOT of other questions.

"Tell us exactly how you justify applying relavistic mathematics to a motion where there is no relative velocity. THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE."

Because most people know that relativistic mechanics is *always* more accurate than classical Newtonian mechanics ? Roughly speaking, extraordinary cosmic events require either relativity or quantum mechanics to explain properly, that is probably why you see relativity mentioned everywhere. (whereever that is)

Bye!

Crisp

2Inquisitive,

MacM, I don't see where they are claiming a proper ejectile speed
of 5200c. They are claiming that the Quasars are MUCH closer than
their supposed distance using red shift as an indicator


ANS: Yes, I've stated that but here is my primary objection:

When we observe Quasar jets from Earth, it is possible that the observed velocity of the jets appears to be greater than the speed of light. Because our current physical models allow for no mechanism that would allow such velocities to exist, we are left to devise some explanation that does mesh with our understanding of physical laws, while also explaining the observed velocities.

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum-math1.htm

This is the first paragraph of the mathematical resolution to the issue. It's basis and first assumtion is the validity of Relativity.

Since Relativity says it can't happen therefore it doesn't happen and hence we must alter this observation to make it fit Relativity.

That is the objection.. This is not to say it is incorrect or invalid. I suspect it is but that isn't really the issue. The issue is altering "Direct" observations and altering the data to make it conform to Relativity without first looking at the data and seeing if Relativity needs to be altered.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM: I took the time to research the sites mentioned by you, and am annoyed at what might be deliberate obfuscation on your part. It could also be due to your failing to carefully analyze the implications of the information from those sites.

The following site mentioned by you mentions some amazing proper motions for quasars, one of which is 5200c. I do think that mainstream physics makes any attempt to explain such a high proper motion, because I do not think that mainstream physics considers the Varshni conclusions valid. http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/NewMotion.htmlThis site also claims that quasars are stars within our galaxy. This local quasar theory is the work of Varshni, who seems to have some valid academic credentials. His theories were initially published prior to 1980. To the best of my knowledge, his theories are not accepted by others considered to be experts in astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology. I did find some creation theory experts who seem to believe in his theories, although (to be fair), the creation theory experts appear to be using statements out of context, making them very misleading about Varshni intent.

Citing Varshni is not as bad as citing Velikovsky, but he is not an accredited source of information about mainstream physics.

The following site mentioned by you relates to the proper motion of ejecta from quasars rather than to the proper motion of quasars. http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum-math1.htmThe above site does not mention any proper motions as high as 5200c for ejecta.

It might be concluded that you did not read the material at these sites carefully, since you have repeatedly referred to the proper motion of 5200c from the first citation as if it were mentioned in the second citation. You furthermore argued against my posts due to their not relating to ejecta with proper motions of 5200c, a proper motion not claimed for ejecta at either site mentioned by you.

I repeat my previous claim that observations cannot be interpreted literally when they involve relativist speeds and/or incredibly distant objects. Extreme speeds and/or astronomical distances can create illusions requiring careful analysis to avoid being misled.

BTW: I think (am not certain) that a scenario resulting in ejecta with a proper motion of 5200c is possible, but do not consider it worthwhile to repeat my preious posts with the parameters required to produce the illusion of such a high proper motion. I doubt that the scenario I worked out has ever been observed, so presenting it would serve little purpose here. If you understand the analysis presented in my previous post, you could work out the necessary parameters.

I have posted explanations of scenarios which can lead to the illusion of FTL speeds. The explanations are based on concepts of classical physics. Any knowledgeable physicist of the 19th century would accept the explanations I posted, and conclude that FTL observations are not valid evidence of actual FTL objects. He would be likely to claim that such observations might be due to FTL speeds, since he would have no concept of the work of Einstein and other 20th century physicists.

No appeals to the concepts of relativity were required for those explanations. The observations you cite as evidence against various relativity concepts are misinterpretations. I wonder if the problem is due to your not being able to understand or due to your not being willing to carefully analyze anything which might undermine your belief system.

As mentioned in a previous post, your attitude seems more like religious dogma based on faith than science based on logical analysis of evidence.

Dinosaur,



MacM: I took the time to research the sites mentioned by you, and am annoyed at what might be deliberate obfuscation on your part. It could also be due to your failing to carefully analyze the implications of the information from those sites.

The following site mentioned by you mentions some amazing proper motions for quasars, one of which is 5200c. I do think that mainstream physics makes any attempt to explain such a high proper motion, because I do not think that mainstream physics considers the Varshni conclusions valid.

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/NewMotion.html


ANS: Please Sharpen your pencil. From the first lines of the presentation:

***GHz, proper motion of core is perpendicular to the jet axis.***


This site also claims that quasars are stars within our galaxy. This local quasar theory is the work of Varshni, who seems to have some valid academic credentials. His theories were initially published prior to 1980. To the best of my knowledge, his theories are not accepted by others considered to be experts in astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology. I did find some creation theory experts who seem to believe in his theories, although (to be fair), the creation theory experts appear to be using statements out of context, making them very misleading about Varshni intent.

Citing Varshni is not as bad as citing Velikovsky, but he is not an accredited source of information about mainstream physics.


ANS: I believe I have already said that they tried to explain the jet velocity as being caused by incorrect distance via false Red Shift Theory. I believe I also said I didn't buy that explanation.


The following site mentioned by you relates to the proper motion of ejecta from quasars rather than to the proper motion of quasars.

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum-math1.htm

The above site does not mention any proper motions as high as 5200c for ejecta.


ANS: I don't believe without going back and reading my posts that I said this site treated 5,200 c ejecta. I said that the mathematics were developed to treat FTL observations. And indeed that is its function.

I cut and pasted their statement directly without edit or modification except to make part of it red.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we observe Quasar jets from Earth, it is possible that the observed velocity of the jets appears to be greater than the speed of light. Because our current physical models allow for no mechanism that would allow such velocities to exist, we are left to devise some explanation that does mesh with our understanding of physical laws, while also explaining the observed velocities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It might be concluded that you did not read the material at these sites carefully, since you have repeatedly referred to the proper motion of 5200c from the first citation as if it were mentioned in the second citation. You furthermore argued against my posts due to their not relating to ejecta with proper motions of 5200c, a proper motion not claimed for ejecta at either site mentioned by you.


ANS: It seems it is you that hasten to judgement and should read more slowly. More importantly they are not the only ones that have found such jet velocities. There is no real scientific dispute about such findings. NASA as well as MIT have repoted the same jet veolcities.

The first link simply tries to explain them away using the Red Shift arguement. So try again. This time tell us that NASA and MIT are not crediable.


I repeat my previous claim that observations cannot be interpreted literally when they involve relativist speeds and/or incredibly distant objects. Extreme speeds and/or astronomical distances can create illusions requiring careful analysis to avoid being misled.

ANS: I wouldn't disagree with that statement but only point out that to fashion the mathematical fudge factor for such observation is jumping further and faster than I have. I have argued just the opposite and that is to take a deep breath and reconsider the whole issue. Don't change the observation because it doesn't fit Relativity. Study the observation and determine if Relativity needs modification.

BTW: I think (am not certain) that a scenario resulting in ejecta with a proper motion of 5200c is possible, but do not consider it worthwhile to repeat my preious posts with the parameters required to produce the illusion of such a high proper motion. I doubt that the scenario I worked out has ever been observed, so presenting it would serve little purpose here. If you understand the analysis presented in my previous post, you could work out the necessary parameters.


ANS: Your previous post addressed a completly different issue.
Look again at the first link. Look at what the 5,200 c is in relation to. It is ejecta between the Quasar and moving jet matter from it.

I have posted explanations of scenarios which can lead to the illusion of FTL speeds. The explanations are based on concepts of classical physics. Any knowledgeable physicist of the 19th century would accept the explanations I posted, and conclude that FTL observations are not valid evidence of actual FTL objects. He would be likely to claim that such observations might be due to FTL speeds, since he would have no concept of the work of Einstein and other 20th century physicists.

ANS: But knowing of Einstiens work then we can clearly discount the possibility that our direct observation has any merit? That is pathetic.

Yes illusion can be created but this is no illusion. You yourself have just rejected their answer that it is because Red Shift is in error and that they must be in our back yard.

Now that you agree they are remote objects and that your tricky illusion of material exploding years after being ejected is seen not to apply here you are left with only two choices.

BTW: I attached the second link and mathematics to this issue because James R., presented it as the answer to the 5,200 c ejecta.

1 - Modify the observation to make it fit Relativity.

2 - Acknowledge that Relativy may need some tweeking.

No appeals to the concepts of relativity were required for those explanations. The observations you cite as evidence against various relativity concepts are misinterpretations. I wonder if the problem is due to your not being able to understand or due to your not being willing to carefully analyze anything which might undermine your belief system.

ANS: Vice-versa my friend. As you can see you have made some mis-statements here already.

My belief is that people such as yourself are to prone and eager to look the other way at anything that contridicts Relativity and to go to extremes to defend it.

My only objective is to determine what is correct. If it is Relativity, so be it. But so far I must say I am not convienced and altering direct observation where the observation conflicts with relativity and there is no relative motion involved strikes me as outright bizzar.

Tampering with such observations to make it fit relativity is the wrong way to go. Fix Relativity.


As mentioned in a previous post, your attitude seems more like religious dogma based on faith than science based on logical analysis of evidence.

PLEASE, look in the mirrow.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

2Inquisitive,

MacM, I don't see where they are claiming a proper ejectile speed
of 5200c. They are claiming that the Quasars are MUCH closer than
their supposed distance using red shift as an indicator. They arrived
at the 5200c figure by measuring angles the matter traveled at the
supposed distance indicated by red shift. If the Quasars were only
a few thousand light years away instead of several million, the speeds measured would be totally different.


ANS: Your response confuses me somewhat. As pointed out in my last reply to Dinosaur, they are not the only ones finding FTL motion by direct observation. NASA and MIT have found the same results and it is a series of Quasars that have FTL ejecta.

They show how that calculation was done but then (as already pointed out) claim that it isn't real because Red Shift is invalid.

That conclusion is generally discounted by all peers.

We are left then to decide what to do about the disconformity of direct observation to the postulates of Relativity.

The second link is that response and it is to discount direct evidence (alter it to make it fit) rather than consider refinning Relativity to describe observation.

That is my complaint. In other words if you conduct an experiment that produces results that do not conform they will seek news ways to alter the results to make it conform rather than change Relativity.

Since Relativity is a purely mathematical concept without physical underpinnings it is subject to misapplication and extrapolation to extremes which are not reality and we should therefore take any such physical observation very seriously and seek to understand it and place limits on our application of Relativty not vice versa.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MacM
[B]2Inquisitive,




ANS: Your response confuses me somewhat. As pointed out in my last reply to Dinosaur, they are not the only ones finding FTL motion by direct observation. NASA and MIT have found the same results and it is a series of Quasars that have FTL ejecta.

They show how that calculation was done but then (as already pointed out) claim that it isn't real because Red Shift is invalid.

That conclusion is generally discounted by all peers.
==================================
MacM, I am in agreement with you that Relativity is flawed. That, of
course, is personal opinion based on what I see as inconsistencies
derived from my own limited knowledge of the Special Theory of
Relativity. Of course, relativists cannot accept the claim that Red
Shift is invalid. It would also bring into question the very basis of
Relativity, the invarence of the speed of light, plus the whole model
of the universe would have to be altered, distances measured by
Red Shift would be questionable. What could cause the red shift
component currently used to derive distance in light years? Would
the old "tired light" hypothesis breathe new life? I believe the
findings of the eclipse expedition of 1919 were inconclusive and
Hafele and Keating was biased to the point of being bogus, among
other things. I wonder if time dilation is the only possible reason
for the extended half-lives of particules traveling at relativistic
speeds. I believe Relativity IS very useful, but think its basic
postulates may be flawed. Just thoughts from a non-physicist.

MacM: As a start, the following is a total misrepresentation (Id est: A lie), implying that relativity is unsupported by experimental evidence.Since Relativity is a purely mathematical concept without physical underpinnings it is subject to misapplication and extrapolation to extremes which are not reality and we should therefore take any such physical observation very seriously and seek to understand it and place limits on our application of Relativty not vice versa.You apparently have little or no background in modern physics, and are totally unfamiliar with experimental evidence supporting relativity.

BTW: The above is a classical fallacious argument. It uses an unsupported (possibely invalid) statement in a grammatical context which implies that the statement is valid. It then continues with a grammatical context implying that some other statement has been proven or at least supported.

In a recent post of yours you said the following.ANS: Not so. The only thing misleading here is the repeated attempts to talk about motions other than those in the initial post which is orthogonal ejecta from Quasars that has "Proper Velocities" up to 5,200 c.In another post you said.From the above list Quasar LB 8956 has ejecta with a proper velocity of 5,200 c.!When asked the source of this information, you directed me to a site that talked about the proper motion of quasars, not of ejecta. Furthermore the author of the article at that site claims large proper motions for quasars measured in arc seconds. He then points out that were the quasars at cosmological distances, the proper motions would translate into FTL motions as great as 5200c. He then uses this line of reasoning to claim that quasars are local to our galaxy, a claim not accepted by any mainstream astronomer.

In fact, mainstream astronomers use quasars as comparison objects to determine the proper motion of closer stars and galaxies. This is due to the current belief by mainstream astronomers that the proper motion of quasars is negligible.

If you had carefully read the information at the site you used as a source, you would have learned that huge proper motions like 2300c & 5200c were not viewed as realistic by the author you were citing. Not only that, the proper motions being discussed related to quasars, not to ejecta.

The following two statements are both from a more recent post.ANS: I don't believe without going back and reading my posts that I said this site treated 5,200c ejecta.

ANS: Your previous post addressed a completly different issue. Look again at the first link. Look at what the 5,200c is in relation to. It is ejecta between the Quasar and moving jet matter from it.Do you think that nobody here reads and remembers what you post? Do you think that nobody here checks sources for validity? Do you think everybody who posts here has the mentality of an ignorant child, whose attention span is limited to one or to sentences?

It is obvious to me that you hunt for sites which provide information which reinforces your our belief system. You furthermore do not read the information carefully enough to understand it. You then paraphrase the information to fit whatever argument you are making at the time, without any attempt to be consistent.

You apparently are hung up on the following statement which you have posted many times.When we observe Quasar jets from Earth, it is possible that the observed velocity of the jets appears to be greater than the speed of light. Because our current physical models allow for no mechanism that would allow such velocities to exist, we are left to devise some explanation that does mesh with our understanding of physical laws, while also explaining the observed velocities.Obviously, the author believes in relativity. After all, many experiments have supported it and its conclusions. You object to the red part of the quote since you are arguing against relativity. That is an understandable point of view, although I consider it a naive one.

In deference you your not wanting an analysis starting with relativistic assumptions, I provided an analysis of proper motion as viewed from astronomical distances using the concepts of classical physics. You did not understand the analysis, but claimed that it was not pertinent due to its not being an exact description of particular scenarios mentioned in your posts. One of your objections was due to my not directly addressing the problem of ejecta with a proper motion of 5200c. The above discussion shows that objection to be absurd, but you made it.

Enough discussion of your fanatic beliefs.

It might be of interest to analyze the following approximate equation, which is derived from my analysis, which I do not intend to post again. The formula is based on concepts of classical physics. ApparentSpeed = Sin(Angle) / [ 1 / ActualSpeed) -Cos( Angle) ]The formula applies to an object or jet starting at some astronomical distance and traveling at an angle to the observer’s line of sight to the starting point of the moving object or jet. It is assumed that the object moves a short distance compared to the distance of the original starting point. The latter assumption results in various distances not being involved in the formula. Units assume that light speed = 1. The formula is quite accurate for ejecta from an object millions or billions of light years from the observer if the observations are restricted to ejecta which moves only hundred or thousands of light years from the starting point. Some interesting conclusions follow, the first two of which imply that the formula is correct.For Angle = zero, ApparentSpeed = 0, there being is no apparent motion orthogonal to the line of sight because the ejecta is moving directly at the observer. For Angle = 90 degrees, ApparentSpeed = ActualSpeed, since the ejecta is moving orthogonal to the line of sight. For ActualSpeed, less than one (speed of light), the formula is consistent with relativity, but can result in ApparentSpeed being greater than the speed of light (1). The maximum ApparentSpeed occurs for cos(Angle) = ActualSpeed. For ActualSpeed greater than 1 (speed of light), some angles produce impossible results due to the observer not being able to make the necessary measurements. An FTL object is contrary to some of the assumptions in the analysis leading to the formula. Note that in classical physics, an FTL object heading directly at the observer would hit him before he saw it. For some values of the Angle, the formula produces reasonable for FTL ejecta, assuming classical physics rather than relativity.I am sure that MacM has no interest in the above, but others might. If classical physics had lasted well into the 20th century when measurement technology became much better, such formulae might have resulted in the development of relativity without the Michelson-Morley experiment. Classical equations applied to FTL objects can produce strange results.

Dinosaur,

It must be nice to think you can double talk your way out of this but you can't. You can falsify the arguement all you want but you have once again choosen to mis-represent what I have said, what others have said and to completely ignore solid information given you.

***GHz, proper motion of core is perpendicular to the jet axis.***

Now I will grant you this. technically the table presented refer to Quasars and don't take the added trouble to specify Quasar Jet velocity.

Having said that look once more at the above reference. Posted here now for the third time. DO YOU NOT SEE THE THREE LETTER WORD "JET" IN THE INTRODUCTION??????

Did you or did you not read and verify that NASA and MIT have also found that to be the velocity of the jets????

If you are unaware of that FACT then I think you are ill equipped to discuss this issue.

Why not address that issue instead of trying to build your phoney case against me. You are going to find I know a hell of a lot more than you want to give credit if that is the route you want to pursue. But before going there I hold you liable to address the issues presented. I have no intention of getting off subject and argue personalities here. If that is your escape plan so be it but others are going to see it for what it was because I have laid out the case exactly correctly. No misunderstandings, no mis-quotes.

It is you that are distorting the issue.

Did you or did you not look at the picture as I pointed out which shows they are referencing the "Jet" velocity.

Enough of your BS. Either discuss the issue and knock off your attempt to put me down (which I now believe you are incapable of) or butt out.

Bottom line you can think any damn thing you want with regard to me or my knowledge but that doesn't change the facts as presented. You have not and I suspect that is because you can not properly address the issue. So my background has no bearing on this string.

You obviscation does. Saying the site doesn't deal with jet velocity simply doesn't make it so. Read the fine print, look at the picture and use some common sense before that foot gets lodged so deep it will require surgery to have it removed from your mouth.

And finally:

MacM: As a start, the following is a total misrepresentation (Id est: A lie), implying that relativity is unsupported by experimental evidence.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Relativity is a purely mathematical concept without physical underpinnings it is subject to misapplication and extrapolation to extremes which are not reality and we should therefore take any such physical observation very seriously and seek to understand it and place limits on our application of Relativty not vice versa.


ANS: I do not lie sir and I do not distort and mis-represent as you have just done.

I made no such statement that Relativity is unsupported experimentally. I did say and still say Relativity is a mathematical concept without physical underpinnings.

Now if you don't understand the true meaning of that statement perhaps you should take an English course. If you want to argue against that position then I simply ask that you provide ONE simple physical "Cause" for Relativity.

Here is a little parting poem for you from Caltech:


Professor Jesse Greenstein posted the following poem on Caltech a blackboard.


Horrid quasar,
Near or far,
This truth to you I must confess:
My heart for you is full of hate.
O superstar,
Imploded gas,
You glowing speck upon a plate,
Of Einstein's world you've made a mess.




Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

I do not lie sir and I do not distort and mis-represent as you have just done.
Mac, you've been doing that the entire time you've been here. You have not argued one point against science that somebody hasn't shot down. You completely distort information (chiral) and then completely contradict yourself on statements you've said (just about everywhere).

I'm sure that list of stupid things you've said is still back there someplace. Perhaps you should review it again and learn from you mistakes.

Persol: Thanx for the support.

MacM: Consider the following.I made no such statement that Relativity is unsupported experimentally. I did say and still say Relativity is a mathematical concept without physical underpinnings.That is a weasel worded post.

I can also be weasel worded. I did not accuse you of explicitly stating that relativity is without experimental support. I only said that your statement implied that it was without supporting evidence. Are we supposed to be using Lawyer English?

Now that your carping about a proper motion of 5200c has been shown to be nonsense, I suppose you are going to nitpick about the word jet. Previously you seemed to like the more general term ejecta, which I did use.

Of course you have no answer explaining the erroneous citation and contradictory statements you made about 5200c. I am sure you want that forgotten now that it has been exposed as nonsense.

What site are you referencing in the following?Now I will grant you this. technically the table presented refer to Quasars and don't take the added trouble to specify Quasar Jet velocity. The Vashni site referred specifically to proper motion of quasars and not to jets or ejecta. That site is not a source of reliable information as mentioned by a previous post. That is the site which mentioned 5200c. I am well aware that the site with the mathematically explanation was about jets (or some type of ejecta) from a quasar. You now seem to be implying that I am unaware of observations of proper motion which seem to be FTL.Did you or did you not read and verify that NASA and MIT have also found that to be the velocity of the jets????It is unclear what velocity that refers to. If it refers to your 5200c, I do not want to bother with that nonsense anymore. I thought we both were discussing observations which appear to be of FTL objects, jets, ejecta. By implication, I have always acknowledged that there are such observations. I thought the discussion had progressed to determining the implications of such observations. Is it necessary to this discussion for me to acknowledge that some specific organization has observed some proper motion with some particular velocity?

Physics deals with models of reality, in most cases mathematical models. It attempts to find equations or algorithms which indicate what happens under certain conditions. It does not deal with causes. That is the province of philosophy and religion.I simply ask that you provide ONE simple physical "Cause" for Relativity.The above request is a cute ploy. Classical physics did not specify causes for gravity, wave phenomena, or other processes. It provided equations and algorithms which modeled observations. Modern physics claims to provide better equations or algorithms. If the model seems to fit the reality, the equations & algorithms are considered worthwhile or valid until some better model is developed.

I repeat: You have the mind set of a religious person, not the mind set of a scientific one. You hunt for information which supports your view, applying no critical judgment to what is presented. The Vashni reference is an example of this behavior.

BTW: You have never seemed to pay any attention to the analysis of proper motion provided by me and by other sites.

Do you take the position that observed velocities are actual velocities? Are you aware that an object many light years away is being observed as it was many years ago? Are you aware that an observation of that same object when it has moved is an observation of it at a different time? Do you believe that no analysis is required when the moving object, jet, ejecta is at an astronomical distance and seems to have a relativistic or FLT speed? Under those conditions, do you believe that what you see is what is really happening?

Persol,

I seem to recall that you too are prone to take liberty with distorting what others have said and your support of Dinosaur really provides him with very little comfort since the information is presented correctly. Your babble abour my post is just that babble.

You make no useful contribution to the discussion which has been typical of your posts.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

The questions arising from the observed motions of Quasars are
still a mystery to me. The formula for explaining the apparent FTL
travel of ejecta moving at a slight angle toward the line of sight
of the observer does not seem to explain the following observation
of Quasar TON 202.
==========================================
A careful search through Luyten's (1969) proper motion survey for quasars from the Hewitt and Burbidge (1993) catalog reveals that the bright quasar TON 202 (QSO 1425+267) has a proper motion of 0.053±0.016 arcsec/year, about the same motion as NGC 7293 or Helix. A previous search of this catalog by Varshni (1982) found 30 quasars, 3 of which had very large proper motions. A more recent search uncovered 10 more quasars, including TON 202. The proper motion of TON 202 is perpendicular to the orientation of its radio lobes (Rogora et al., 1986). If it is truly as far as its redshift implies (z=0.362) its tranverse velocity would be of the order of one thousand times the speed of light, a clear indication that the cosmological redshift hypothesis is completely untenable.
http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/abs/AV1995.html
===========================================
Unless I am missing something, this motion was orthogonal to our
line of sight. It would seem to me that:
(1) the proper motion of about .053 arcsec/yr had to be in error,
which is supposedly easily confirmed by imaging over a period
of time,
(2) the cosmological red shift hypothesis for determining distance
is unreliable,
(3) or the statement that nothing can move faster than the speed
of light is not true.
If TON 202 were moving at an angle to our line of sight, wouldn't
the .053 arcsec/yr represent a GREATER actual distance traveled
in a year, thus increased velocity, or it would have to be even
closer to us? My bet is that cosmological red shift as predicted by
General Relativity is in error. Of course, I have been known to be
wrong before! :D

2Inquisitive,

Your post is precisely correct. And since they choose to not discard Red Shift they developed mathematics to adjust the direct observation of "Traverse" (Orthogonal) motion downward using relavisitic principles mathematically based on the assumption that Relativity prohibits any motion FTL.

When they do this to motion that is not relative to the observer. It is bizzar and unjustified. That is what James R., did by trying to use the formula to show such traverse motion wasn't really FTL.

That has been my arguement.

But there are those here that would rather attempt to distort or pick at my post rather than address the real issue. I am putting those responses on ignore and hope that others such as yourself will become interested in this slight of hand treatment of data in support of Relativity.

Either red Shift is wrong or v = c limit is wrong. They want to have their cake and eat it too, it would seem.

PS: Ton202 is the 2nd fastest Quasar. The fastest is 5,200 c.

Which despite of the ramblings and disclaimers being made by some, is data that has been verified by numerous sources including NASA and MIT.

So I will not even attempt to argue the credentials of the particular paper I quoted but only point out (as they did) that they merely duplicated prior findings of others. So if they are crediable or not is not even at issue. It is the product of Snake Oil propaganda by Relativity supporters.


Thanks for your insight.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Dinosaur and Persol,



http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ex_refcode?refcode=1994ApJ...430..467V

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1994ApJ...430..467V&db_key=AST&page_ind=6&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF


http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/e98/PAPERS/WEP50C.PDF


So mainstream science isn't interested. Hmmm. Hundreds of pages by NASA. And Cern. Hmmmm.


http://cdsaas.u-strasbg.fr:2001/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v506n2/38215/sc3.html

This superluminal quasar (z = 0.595, 1 mas = 7.6 pc) is a strong emitter from the radio to UV (Bregman et al. 1986). It exhibits blazar properties (Impey & Neugebauer 1988) and has a high optical polarization (Moore & Stockman 1984). 3C 345 has been extensively studied using VLBI (Unwin et al. 1983; Biretta, Moore, & Cohen 1986; Zensus, Cohen, & Unwin 1995) over distances ranging from 0.1 to 12 mas from the unresolved core.


Brown, Roberts, & Wardle (1994) studied the milliarcsecond polarization structure of 3C 345 at 5 GHz and its evolution from 19811987. They found in general that the core was weakly polarized (2%4%) and that fractional polarization increased in components with distance from the core reaching a maximum of 15%. The electric-vector position angle (assuming no Faraday rotation) was found to be variable in the core but generally perpendicular to the jet axis beyond 2 mas, even as the jet bends through 25°.


Hmmm. "Superluminal Quasar", neat how they never even got around to mentioning the word jet until the end of the second paragraph.

I wonder if the first paragraph refers to the Quasar itself since it doesn't refer to its jet. But then I would have to wonder if that were so what is the velocity in relation to? Hmmm.

Seems to me somebody is attempting to confuse the issue here.

It is also interesting to see how they are saying "Lorentz Relativity" is required. Didn't say Einstiens "Theory of Relativity" was wrong but it occurs to me that if they must use Lorentz Relativity then Einstiens Relativity must somehow be insufficient.

Interesting since Lorentz based his work on the concept of an aether.

If you aren't careful they are gong to have you down doing pushups for not keeping pace with real science.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ex_refcode?refcode=1994ApJ...430..467V
This link is dead

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1994ApJ...430..467V&db_key=AST&page_ind=6&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF
This states specifically that tracking the motion is not extremely accurate. It does not in anyway contradict anything I have said.

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/e98/PAPERS/WEP50C.PDF
This work also doesn't support your argument. It simple proposes that the 'geometry' is different then we think.

http://cdsaas.u-strasbg.fr:2001/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v506n2/38215/sc3.html
Also doesn't contradict anything I've said.

So, I'm wondering what your point was.

Persol,

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ex_refcode?refcode=1994ApJ...430..467V


This link works just fine. Check your computer.

Since you had nothing to contribute to the discussion but merely attacked me, I could have posted The Three Pigs and have had as much to say with regard to anything you said here.

The point was the comment that mainstream science wasn't interested in FTL and the guys link that I posted were not credible. The point is the data they posted (as they said) was merely duplicted by them. The data has been found by others, including NASA and MIT.

This was to show that NASA has hundreds if not thousands of pages of studies of FTL. In there they seem to be going with Lorentz.

The point was to much BS and to little productive conversation.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
This link works just fine. Check your computer.
Very odd, I still can not connect.

The point was the comment that mainstream science wasn't interested in FTL and the guys link that I posted were not credible. The point is the data they posted (as they said) was merely duplicted by them. The data has been found by others, including NASA and MIT.
The data which has been interpreted to be FTL has been found by others. I do not think this is in dispute. The dispute is that credible scientists do not actually treat these as being faster than light.

This was to show that NASA has hundreds if not thousands of pages of studies of FTL. In there they seem to be going with Lorentz.
Show me just one report where they actually claim something to be faster than light. None of these have done that. Even the links you provided which incorporate Lorentz do not claim c+ speeds. Lorentz does not automatically mean c+.

Persol,

Strange indeed. I just tried again and got through to the link. Anybodyelse not getting through on the link?


Lorentz does not automatically mean c+.

I certainly know that. Take a look at the Cern link. They discuss specifically jets that are sub-luminal and superluminal. That don't say that appear superluminal. They refer to them AS superluminal.

NASA seems to want to avoid the clash by simply not being commital but keeps making statements that hint in that direction.

Like "Lorentz Relativity" is required. Or "Very Interesting for future study". At the same time they do not go through a bunch of contortions trying to make superluminal velocities become subluminal. They make reference at one point to a Lorentz Factor =>10.

It wasn't you but Dinosaur that implied that the stated findings in the referenced link were ficticous because the authors had no credibility, which ignored the fact that others have also found the same data.

Thanks

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Just because something is superluminal does not mean that it is traveling faster then the speed of light. Usually they are talking about the speed of the 'wave', not the speed of the light.

2Inquisitive: You seem to be rational person new to this thread. I hope you will do some independent research to decide who is correct: MacM or myself. Your analysis and comments on the article by Varshni is quite correct. It so happens that your first possibility is correct: The data relating to proper motion of quasars is incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, quasars have no proper motion. See the following site.
http://www.tls-tautenburg.de/research/meus/active_galaxies/VPM.htmlThe following is from that site.Most criteria for the conventional selection of quasar candidates are based on the differences of their spectral energy distribution compared to stars. In order to estimate which fraction of quasars are eventually ignored by such surveys, one has to perform alternative search strategies that do not directly rely on the spectral energy distribution. Brightness variations and very large distances are such properties. As a consequence of their large distances, quasars do not show proper motions, contrary to a large fraction of stars. The search for objects which are both variable in brightness and stationary in position is supposed to be a powerful technique for efficiently finding quasars. The selection effects of such a search are expected to be quite different from those of the more conventional optical search techniques.I have also found sites mentioning that due to having negligible proper motions, quasars are used as stationary references for use in determining the proper motion of other astronomical objects.

The discovery of gravitational lensing of quasars occurred well after the Varshni article and the Luyten data on which it is based. This is extremely strong evidence for quasars being at cosmological distances rather than being nearby objects (as concluded by Varshni).

The Varshni citation is totally invalid. MacM carped for some time about a proper motion of 5200c attributed to this site. A careful reading of the Varshni article shows that such a proper motion is considered absurd by Varshni and it is used as an argument that quasars are nearby stars rather than being at cosmological distances.

The various reliable sites which refer to FTL proper motions are referring to jets or some type of ejecta from quasars or other distant objects. They do not relate to the quasars themselves. I do not think that any stars have FTL proper motions, but I am not certain of this.

My initial reaction to the Varshni article was that Varshni and Luyten were nuts or charlatans, especially since I easily found creation scientists citing their work. Further research provided no evidence supporting my opinion of Varshni and Luyten. They seem to be credible scientists. I have decided that they were using astronomical data now considered obsolete, resulting in their coming to erroneous conclusions. This is merely a SWAG (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess) on my part. I do not really know the reason for their being at odds with mainstream experts.If TON 202 were moving at an angle to our line of sight, wouldn't the .053 arcsec/yr represent a GREATER actual distance traveled in a year, thus increased velocity, or it would have to be even closer to us?Your above remark seems intuitively valid, but is actually incorrect. If an object at an astronomical distance is traveling perpendicular to our line of sight its apparent speed is equal to its actual speed. If it is traveling at an angle to the line of sight (with a component toward the observer), its apparent speed is greater than its actual speed. The analysis of this illusion does not require relativity assumptions. A classical physicist would agree, although he (unlike a modern physicist) would consider the possibility of FTL motion. A simple thought experiment might convince you of this illusion.Imagine a projectile directed toward an observer at 90% of the speed of light from an object 10 light years away.

If the object left at time = 0, the observer would see it leave at time = 10 years.

When first seen, the object would only be 1 light year from the observer.

If not killed by the impact, the observer would see the object hit nearby at time = 11 years.

The naive observer might conclude that the projectile traveled 10 light years in one year.For objects at astronomical distances, careful analysis of observations is required to determine what is really happening. Note that for objects moving at an angle, a more complex analysis is required.

Part of the controversy between MacM and myself is related to one of the following. MacM is correct, I am wrong, and relativity is absurd. He has totally ignored the analysis of apparent versus actual speed. He considers the analysis to be inapplicable to our controversy. This seems to be what he is claiming most of the time. He is not smart enough to understand, and dismisses it due to the counterintuitive nature of the results of the analysis. He cannot allow himself to use his critical judgment capabilities, because at some level of his psyche, he knows he will have to admit that he is wrong. I suspect that his views are based more on faith than logical analysis of evidence.BTW: I consider relativity to be a very reliable theory compared to cosmological theories. While I tend to agree with the overall Big Bang scenario, it seems to me that the experts are on shaky ground in many of the details. In particular, the extrapolation of the observed expansion backwards beyond any observational data seems likely to result in erroneous conclusions about era from the beginning to the time when matter first dominated radiation. Inflation seems like an ad hoc scenario made to patch up the overall theory.

Dinosaur,

Congratulations. Your post to 2Inquisitive was overall a pretty good one - with a couple of notable exceptions:


I have also found sites mentioning that due to having negligible proper motions, quasars are used as stationary references for use in determining the proper motion of other astronomical objects.

ANS: You are the one that claimed the data I posted was Quasar motion. I have never claimed quasar motion but was refering to jet velocities. My question would have been relavistic motion to what? It was obvious that relavistic motion was relative to components, fragments, patricles, etc, relative to the core and not the star background.



The discovery of gravitational lensing of quasars occurred well after the Varshni article and the Luyten data on which it is based. This is extremely strong evidence for quasars being at cosmological distances rather than being nearby objects (as concluded by Varshni).


ANS: I do believe if you read my posts I have rejected the conclusion they reached which was they were nearby stars. The same rejection is and has been posted on my site since it was first established.

The Varshni citation is totally invalid. MacM carped for some time about a proper motion of 5200c attributed to this site. A careful reading of the Varshni article shows that such a proper motion is considered absurd by Varshni and it is used as an argument that quasars are nearby stars rather than being at cosmological distances.


ANS: Their conclusion is I believe (as stated) in error. But their findings are not stand alone findings. Their findings duplicate prior findings by others and findings by NASA and MIT of extremely high "traverse jet velocities".


The various reliable sites which refer to FTL proper motions are referring to jets or some type of ejecta from quasars or other distant objects. They do not relate to the quasars themselves. I do not think that any stars have FTL proper motions, but I am not certain of this.


ANS: And again my comments have all been directed to the jet velocities. In particular those that are "traverse" (orthogonal).

In regard to stars being superluminal, I too have some question. I would have said "No" but the NASA link I posted seems to suggest that there are objects showing superluminal velocity.

I have sent some inquires infact to get more information (in better lay terms) for what appeared to be just that.

My initial reaction to the Varshni article was that Varshni and Luyten were nuts or charlatans, especially since I easily found creation scientists citing their work. Further research provided no evidence supporting my opinion of Varshni and Luyten. They seem to be credible scientists. I have decided that they were using astronomical data now considered obsolete, resulting in their coming to erroneous conclusions. This is merely a SWAG (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess) on my part. I do not really know the reason for their being at odds with mainstream experts.


ANS: Not that you care I'm sure but this statement gained you back some credibility points. Although it would have been even more impressive had you made that admission directly to me.:D


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If TON 202 were moving at an angle to our line of sight, wouldn't the .053 arcsec/yr represent a GREATER actual distance traveled in a year, thus increased velocity, or it would have to be even closer to us?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your above remark seems intuitively valid, but is actually incorrect. If an object at an astronomical distance is traveling perpendicular to our line of sight its apparent speed is equal to its actual speed. If it is traveling at an angle to the line of sight (with a component toward the observer), its apparent speed is greater than its actual speed. The analysis of this illusion does not require relativity assumptions. A classical physicist would agree, although he (unlike a modern physicist) would consider the possibility of FTL motion. A simple thought experiment might convince you of this illusion.


ANS: Now we have the meat of this discussion. I have no arguement about illusionary affects of parallel motion, etc. A great deal of the NASA work addresses that issue and they present simular examples to the one you have given. But that has never been the issue. The issue is (as you stated above) where traverse (orthogonal) motion is involved the velocity you measure is the actual velocity.

If you read the NASA material I have linked you will find the angle range to cause the affect you have relied upon is indeed quite narrow. Fractions of a degree as I recall but I don't remember exactly.

My post here has to do with the fact that a Relavistic correction factor (algorithum) was created and James R. wanted to use it to reduce what was claimed traverse FTL motion to subluminal velocity. That is where I have the disagreement.

((Sample FTL illusion deleted))


Part of the controversy between MacM and myself is related to one of the following.

MacM is correct, I am wrong, and relativity is absurd.

ANS: That is not what I said at all. Look again please. I said applying a Relavistic algorithum to "Traverse" FTL velocity to make v < c in keeping with the v = c limit of Relativity was absurd.

I am saying the misapplication of Relativity to such cases is absurd. that does not make Relativity absurd (although it still might be:D).


He has totally ignored the analysis of apparent versus actual speed.

ANS: I didn't ignore it at all. I stated the fact that it didn't address the issue of "orthogonal" motion. And that view is still valid by your own admission above.


He considers the analysis to be inapplicable to our controversy. This seems to be what he is claiming most of the time.


ANS: And it is as I stated and you agreed above.

He is not smart enough to understand, and dismisses it due to the counterintuitive nature of the results of the analysis.
He cannot allow himself to use his critical judgment capabilities, because at some level of his psyche, he knows he will have to admit that he is wrong. I suspect that his views are based more on faith than logical analysis of evidence.

ANS: I'll pass on the personal attacks. To respond would be to exacerbate kissing and making up.:D. But my position is based on critical judgement. The problem is actually your misinterpretation of what my position is.

That has more to do with you jumping to conculsions than it does errors in my presentation.

Because you have labled me you tend to challenge anything I say without reading it carefully.

Look at this string. We are pretty much in agreement here after all this unecessary BS.


BTW: I consider relativity to be a very reliable theory compared to cosmological theories. While I tend to agree with the overall Big Bang scenario, it seems to me that the experts are on shaky ground in many of the details. In particular, the extrapolation of the observed expansion backwards beyond any observational data seems likely to result in erroneous conclusions about era from the beginning to the time when matter first dominated radiation. Inflation seems like an ad hoc scenario made to patch up the overall theory.


ANS: I actually agree that Relativity seems more accurate than most Cosmologies but I think you have to broad of a view of its application and it has become extrapolated way beyond testing and evidence, hence it too is on shaky ground. This FTL issue is one of those areas. Quantum findings is another. But that is another issue.

2Inquisitive,

Dinosaur has just politely told you I am not only a Crackpot but ignorant and stupid. I would only ask that you review this thread and see if what he has claimed I said is what I said or did he misrepresent my statements and create his own counter arguement against me from his own alteration of my arguments.

You'll find it is the latter. I didn't say nor claim what he says I said or claimed. He in fact has made some abrupt reversals in what he has said.

So keep an open mind.


PS: I have noticed twice now that if you type v < c and don't put space between the characters it only prints v. Does anybody know why?


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Maybe I should kind of explain my position towards relativity. I believe
both SR and GR are very good and also invaluable theories. I do not
think that they are without faults, however. Newton's Laws were
a brilliant piece of work that has stood the test of time, but Relativity
added to them and gave a new insight to how things work on a
cosmological scale and at relativistic speeds among other things.
I think relativity is now in the same position as Newton's Laws were
in when GR was introduced. I believe Relativity needs some revision
or new theories developed in the instances where it seems to give
unrealistic results. I know mainstream physics does not see it as
inaccurate in any results, but possibly because of my very limited
knowledge, I do. Take Quasar TON 202 for instance. I agree that
proper motion of a Quasar itself would be negligible at the extreme
distances that the standard model says they are all at. I have seen
nothing to refrute the observed orthogonal motion of TON 202. I
still see cosmological red shift as being in error on this particular
Quasar or else it is not a Quasar at all. I am not saying ALL Quasars
are close by, but if the red shift of TON 202 indicated it was very
distant from us, then some thought has to be given to the accuracy
of determing distances by cosmological red shift and also the model
that says all Quasars are very distant objects. My understanding of
Quasars is that they are thought to be supermassive black holes
that give off intense EM radiation from their accreation (sp?) disk
as matter collides while swirling towards the event horizon. It is
proven that EM waves can be bent by gravity. Is it such a stretch
to think that the intense gravity of a black hole may have an effect
on EM radiation trying to escape its grasp, changing its red shift
signature? Your statement saying that the speed of ejecta moving
at an angle to our line of sight is only an illusion of FTL does not
make sense to me in this instance. Again, if the proper motion of
.053 archsec/yr were correct AND the distance to the Quasar were
correct, the tranversal speed of the Quasar would be calculated
as a result of the triangle formed. If the Quasar were a billion ly
distant, having the Quasar move more towards our line of sight
for a year would make no difference in its calculated speed if its
movement was still a DISTANCE of .053 archsec in a years time.
From the information at the website, the distance of .053 archsec
per year was supposedly gleaned by comparisons with stars and
galaxies in the images of Quasar over several years time. If the
figure of .053 archsec/yr were estimated by some other method,
of course it could be in error. I would think the only way for ejecta
to be confirmed as moving FTL would be if the jets from both sides
of a Quasar were moving faster than light. I am not aware of that
ever happening. I still have questions about the accuracy of using
cosmological red shifts to determine distance, particularly from high
gravity objects. Again, I am just a layman, not a physicist and religion has nothing to do with it on my part.

Dinosaur, I just want to add that I found a possible explanation
for Quasar TON 202. As I said before, it may not be a true Quasar.
It could possibly be a microquasar, similar to XTE J1118+480. This
microquasar produces the energetic bursts similar to its larger and
more distant cousin and is traveling thru our galaxy at 90mi/sec
relative to earth at a distance of 6000 light years from earth. They
now believe that there are many microquasars in the Milky Way.
Of course, it would still mean that cosmological red shift was off
to misjudge the distance to TON 202 so badly. A link below.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/blackhole_010913.html

macM: I intend some remarks directed to you later if I have time.

2Inquisitive: The article on the Black Hole (or Micro-Quasar) in our galaxy was fascinating and a little scary. It makes a person realize how easily a cosmic accident could wipe us out, resulting in there being no evidence that we ever existed.

Since a Micro-Quasar is about 3-20 solar masses (certainly less than 100), it is unlikely to ever be mistaken for a quasar which weighs in at billions (at least millions) of solar masses.

You seem intelligent enough to understand the analysis of FTL illusions. If you have some simple prerequisite knowledge (and I am sure that you do), you should be able to follow the logic of the illusion. An early post of mine to this thread described a thought experiment relating to an object moving along the hypotenuse of a (5, 12, 13) right triangle, with proper motion along the 5-leg orthogonal to the line of sight and the 12-leg along the line of sight to an observer.

If you can follow the analysis, I am certain that you will be convinced that apparent speed and actual speed are the same for objects moving at right angles to the line of sight, but that apparent speed is greater than actual speed for objects traveling at an angle to the line of sight. The analysis assumes that actual speed is relativistic, that the distances involved are astronomical, and that there is a component of motion toward the observer. The analysis is a calssical one, involving no relativity assumptions. This is a simple example of a situation involving relativistic speeds producing counterintuitive conclusions. I repeat, the illusion does not require relativity theory notions.

MacM considered the analysis not pertinent to the thread for some reason. I think he complained that it described an object exploding after traveling 13 light years rather than describing a jet ejected from a quasar, but I do not remember the details of his objection.

The claim of a large proper motion for Quasar TON 202 is erroneous. It is based either on incorrect data over 30 years old or it is based on incorrect analysis of that data. As posted previously, current evidence indicates that quasars have no proper motion. They seem to be motionless except for their recessional velocity. They are used as stationary references in the determination of the proper motion of closer objects.

You mentioned something interesting: Red shift due to an intense gravitation field. This seems like a possible component of the red shift attributed to quasars. I wonder if it is factored into the calculations of their distance. If not, why not? I hope I remember to research this question.

I believe that quasars are at cosmological distances, although I question the precision of the actual distances quoted. I do not have enough background to comprehend the technical papers written by experts for experts. The more comprehensible articles tend to omit some of the finer points. I suspect that among the facts omitted are mention of the error in estimates of quasar distances. I am sure that the quoted distances are not considered precise by the experts, although it is my SWAG that they are not off by more than 10-20%, and some might be accurate to 5%.

Gravitational lensing is strong evidence of quasars being at cosmological distances. The absence of quasars within 50-500,000 million light years indicate that they are distant objects that no longer exist in the universe. The spectral analysis indicates that they are unique objects, and prevents their being confused with other objects. I do not think there is any doubt that they are at cosmological distances, only doubt about the precise distances.

BTW: The relationship between red shift and distance has been established by a very reasonable analysis. Parallax measurements are precise up to about 100 light years. This allows the development of accurate formulae relating spectral properties of varius types of stellar objects to intrinsic brightness. Intrinsic brightness versus apparent brightness provides reasonablely accurate distance estimates far beyond the limits of parallax methods. The relationship between red shift and distance is based on distances determined by these other methods. While there are some unproven assumptions about conditions in the early universe, the red shift versus distance relationships are not likely to be way off base, making the overall Big Bang scenario quite reasonable.

In the 1950's there were those who believed in Steady State (or Continuous Creation) cosmology with almost religious fervor. Fred Hoyle was the chief advocate of this cosmology. Big Bang was originally a derogatory term coined by Steady State cosmologists. There were a few other viable theories backed by some formidable intellects. The backers of various other cosmologies reluctantly accepted the Big Bang scenario by about 1970. Those unwilling or unable to analyze evidence supporting the Big Bang theory should consider the implications of its acceptance by formidable intellects who originally believed in other cosmologies.

BTW: I was very disappointed in the death of Steady State cosmologies, which had great emotional appeal for me.

From an AstroPhysicist:


You are right that IF a superluminal counterjet were seen, that would mean that something is very wrong with our understanding of the system or of relativity.


While the following has not yet been confirmed, it at this time appears 3C66B has a counter jet. The measurements currently do not fit relavistic treatment.

www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Reference/Bulletin/Bull36/bulleti3.htm


www.pa.msu.edu/soarmsu/pix/getps.html

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Dinosaur, I chose Quasar TON 202 BECAUSE its proper motion was
NOT based on ejecta. The proper motion was of the Quasar itself.
The analogy of using ejecta to creat an illusion of FTL does not work
with this particular Quasar. I understand how ejecta at small angle
to the line of sight could create an illusion of FTL, but there was no
ejecta used in this case. It was classified as a Quasar partially because of its brightness, periodic outbursts and a red shift given
as z=0.362. An article in the May 15, 1987 Astrophysical Journal
referred to Quasar TON 202 as a low-redshift QSO with a forbidden
transition. True Quasars have no proper motion themselves, only
their ejecta. However, many objects have been classified as Quasars
partially based on their red shift that would put them at a vast distance when they were really galatic microquasars at a small fraction of the distance indicated by their red shift. True Quasars
ARE at great distances. The red shift hypothesis is unreliable for
determining distance to Quasars and Microquasars, I believe. I found
other published material, not by Varshni, that seems to support
that view. Spectral analysis of X-ray emission of Galactic Microquasar
XTE J1748-288 during the June 1998 outburst indicate varing redshifts
of its disk emissions. They used the line profile of iron as an indicator.http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v546n2/51856/brief/51856.abstract.html
The question was raised how could they mistake a microquasar
for a quasar when the quasar is a million times more massive. I
don't know how mass is estimated, but the quasar is also about
a million times more distant than the microquasar. More links.
An abstract of a published Harvard paper on Quasar TON 202.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1987ApJ...316..584S
I thought MacM might be interested in the following link, because it
shows where RECESSIONAL velocities are allowed to be faster than light, but they are NOT TRUE FTL because of the expansion of the
universe....
When z is larger than 1 then cz is faster than the speed of light and, while recession velocities faster than light are allowed, this approximation using cz as the recession velocity of an object is no longer valid. Thus for the largest known redshift of z=6.3, the recession velocity is not 6.3*c = 1,890,000 km/sec. It is also not the 285,254 km/sec given by the special relativistic Doppler formula 1+z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)). The actual recession velocity for this object depends on the cosmological parameters, but for an OmegaM=0.3 vacuum-dominated flat model the velocity is 585,611 km/sec. This is faster than light.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

hmmmmmmmmmm.

i'm not sure

It does seem that this issue has many answers and none are uniformly consistant with observation.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Dinosaur,

I have a question but haven't gotten around to ask it.

Where does "Blue Shift" enter into this picture. If we are looking at "Red Shift" should that not be recession?

If the "apparent" FTL ejecta is is coming toward us at those kinds of rates would not Blue Shift override distance Red Shift? Or at least substantially change the apparent Red Shift?

Knowi