Can someone explain to me how a quazar can move away from us faster than the speed of light and still be observed. Is relativistic motion and recessional motion is different? If recessional speed is due to the expansion of space, how can it be detected? Doesn't it mean that EVERYTHING is expanding making it impossible to detect?

When traveling at relativistic velocities you must use the relativistic red shift equation to determine the recessional velocity.

AndersHermanssons,


The Quasar velocity is orthogonal (sidewards) motion not directly relative to us so Relativity would not be affective.

Also (although I don't think it was appropriate) formulas have been developed which explain such "Proper Motion v>c" as being actually less than c.

It is a series of manipulations simular to the Velocity Addition Formula which make such motion compute as less than observed!

It is based in the first instance upon the assumption that Relativity is absolutely valid and therefore such motion cannot exist, hence based on relavistic algorithums what you see is not what you get.

mac,

Isnt it just observed as moving to to its redshift? We dont actually see it move at all. Therefore, it could actually be a little alien kid with a new toy blamer line shifting flashlight made to fool us. how do we know?

ORW,

I will see if I can find the link. It has been posted on site but it involved some relavistic trig. The motion is referred to as "Proper Motion" That is the lateral motion as seen by us which is in excess of v = c. (Way in excess, as high as 5,200 c).

The Red Shift hypothisis infact is being attacked as invalid because of these findings.

ORW,

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

This thread seems to have drifted slightly from the original question, so the following seems pertinent to what is actually being discussed.

The link posted by MacM is lengthy and not easy to follow. An easier analysis of an analogous situation is the following.

Suppose a missile was fired at you from a planet known to be 10 light years away. Consider what you would see if the missile was traveling at .75cTen years after the missile was fired, you would see it start on its journey. It would now be 2.5 light years away.

2.5 years later (12.5 years after it departed), you would see it passing an object 2.5 light years away. It would now be .625 light years from you. In 2.5 years, you have seen it travel 7.5 light years. You have seen it travel at 3c.What you see is not always what is really happening.

?Originally posted by MacM
ORW,

I will see if I can find the link. It has been posted on site but it involved some relavistic trig. The motion is referred to as "Proper Motion" That is the lateral motion as seen by us which is in excess of v = c. (Way in excess, as high as 5,200 c).

The Red Shift hypothisis infact is being attacked as invalid because of these findings.

isnt proper motion something like, the magnitude of the sum of 2 perpendicular vectors of radial velocity and transverse velocity :bugeye: ?

if so, i fail to see the trig. its just a unit vector, or pythagorean. propermotion= sqrt(radial velocity^2 + transverse velovity^2)

On RadioActive Waves,

I already know this is going to cause trouble but so be it. James R., and I have already had a discussion about this issue and he is correct, the mathematics are consistant. But in my opinion they are arbitrary and serve no logical or needed purpose other than to keep Relativity whole.

The first attachment is the definition of "Proper Motion". It is nothing more than the motion you see for example of an airplane moving across the sky in traverse motion. You see the angle change, measure the time and then compute its proper velocity.

That was fine until numerous objects were found to be violating Relativity. Indeed the fastest Quasar I have read about has a proper velocity of 5,200 c!!!

Attachment 2 shows what they did. It is all said quite well in the first paragraph. Since current theory does not allow for something to have a proper velocity of v=>c then they were left to devise an explanation.

And devise they did. But it is wholly unjustified effort to alter observation and force it to conform to Relativity. It is smoke and mirrows all the way. They ultimately state since nothing can have a velocity of v>c then we must divide by c and formulate things in terms of ratios of c.!!!

This is nothing but an adjustment algorithum of actual observation (Reality) to conform to Relativity (Theoretical) physics.

First paragraph of attachment #2:

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.



Click on the screen to get an enlarge button for readability.
This link give the full mathematical treatment.
http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum-math1.htm

MacM: Either you do not understand the mathematics or you are deliberately obfuscating in order to discredit Relativity. If the latter explanation is valid, shame on you.

The logic and mathematics at the site you posted is neither easy nor formidable, but it clearly explains the apparent FTL speeds as illusionary.

If either you or others pay some attention to my previous post you will surely understand how observations can be misleading. That post provides a very simple example of an object traveling at .75c which is "observed” to be traveling at 3c.

Because my post describes an object traveling directly toward the observer, the discrepancy between observation and reality is easy to understand. The principle is the same as that for extremely fast Quasar jets (or other objects) not traveling directly toward the observer.

Dinosaur,

No. That is why I showed the link with the math developed. I just happen to think once you settle in on a concept that you can continue to develope new math for every observation and/or test to keep data consistant with the preconcieved idea.

The same observations can be interpreted differently viewing things as not being according to Relativity.

The math makes the initial assumption that Relativity is valid and bases the mathematical treatment on that assumption.

That is not to say it is invalid but only that for whatever reason science seems to have lost its desire to look beyond Relativity for alternate explanations and I think that is a mistake.

MacM: Are you deliberately being obtuse or did you ignore a previous post of mine? This issue has little to do with relativity. It is a matter of illusions due to objects traveling at extremely high speeds.

There is no conspiracy to ignore or explain away data or observations contrary to relativity. There just is no such data or observations, except for extreme situations like the singularity at the center of a Black Hole. That problem (and others if any) is acknowledged and is the reason that a Quantum Gravity theory is expected to be an improvement over relativity.

My post about an object being observed as it heads toward earth requires no relativist formulae or logic. It would be accepted by physicists prior to 1900, when Galilean relativity was still considered valid.

I do not think you read and understood the essay at the link you posted. You surely understood my post if you paid any attention, which I doubt.

Dinosaur,

Your are patrially correct in that I have not gone thorugh the math in detail. But I have looked at statements being made and close enough to see what I feel are problems.

1 - How do you justify that it has nothing to do with Relativity when they make statements like "Since current theory does not allow v>c {{{Relativity}} then we must DEVISE an explanation.

2 - Then you see algerbraic substitutions using Beta and Gamma (terms like (1-(v^2/c^2))^.5, a very obvious Relavistic formulation.

3 - I have questions galore here. They are discussing "Proper Motion", which is the Y term = v*t*sin(Theta). The observation I have referred to as having been measured at 5,200 c.

Any highschool student can see that if v*t*sin(Theta) = 5,200 c, then the true velocity d = v*t (for t2) is even greater.

How is it then that after all this massaging that 5,200 c ends up being less than c.

I think you should take a closer look at what is going on here.

Also I don't see how they can subtract the term (t2 - t1). t1 is much larger than t2. That would make Vt = Y/(t2 - t1) = - velocity?