Antigravity Research

PARENT GALAXY WITH QUASAR BIRTH - SCHEMATIC OF FAMILY HISTORY



"Astronomer Halton Arps model of galactic ejection: High-redshift quasars are ejected from an active galactic nucleusoften in pairs in opposite directions along the galaxys spin axis. As they move away from the galaxy, their redshifts decrease, their mass increases, and they slow down. As they fall back toward the galaxy, their matter differentiates into stars, and they evolve into companion galaxies or galactic clusters, whose redshifts continue to approach, stepwise, the redshift of the parent galaxy."

www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070504quasarejection.htm

AGAINST THE TIDE-HOW SCIENCE GETS DONE

philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004046/01/againsttide.pdf

QUASAR EJECTIONS BY NEARBY GALAXIES:

"Ejections of quasars at relativistic speeds from nearby galaxies: Ejection mechanism and selection effects:

Abstract It has become part of the conventional wisdom of quasar research that quasars cannot be objects ejected from nearby galaxies. The reasons are summarized in Burbidge & Burbidge (1967) and they include: (1) in quasar spectra only redshifts, and no blueshifts, are observed, contrary to expectation in a local Doppler interpretation of quasar line shifts; (2) the energy requirements for relativistically moving quasars seem excessive and the ejection mechanism is unknown. In. this work we show that the first problem could be explained via some powerful selection effects, and that the second problem does not exist in the relativistic slingshot process of ejecting black holes. Consequently one cannot exclude the possibility that at least some of the quasar-galaxy associations of large redshift differentials discussed by Arp and Sulentic are real and that the redshift differences are due to high speeds of ejected quasars"

www.springerlink.com/content/dr37u04765157402/



MOST DISTANT QUASAR 13.5 BILLION YEARS OLD SHOWS HIGHER THAN EXPECTED IRON CONTENT.

The light from APM 8279+5255, for example, takes 13.5 billion years to reach Earth, so we see it as looks 13.5 billion years ago.

"Presumably, the quasar should look very young in the early cosmic snapshot, but due to its iron-rich content, it looks much more mature.

The team, which includes researchers at the Max-Planck Institute in Germany, said that the most likely explanation for the mystery is that the quasar and hence the universe are older than expected."

edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/10/universe.age/index.html

What I have gathered so far in my investigations is that ejected Quasars, the brightest objects in Universe appear to be a birth process for bulging mature galaxies. Highly redshifted ejected Quasars, seem to have larger then expected massive mature black holes. Also, viewplain may create a different perspective revealing blue shifted regions with x-ray absorption. Probably side views produce greater redshifting because light generation is greater, from accelerated electrons around interior black hole magnetic fields and x-ray jets. John

Hi John, the idea that the universe is older than thought is okay by me, I get it being eight thousand times older/bigger. The iron problem though Im not so sure about. In another thread I was talking about the core of any sun having a neg r.i. It would contain huge amounts of gravitational energy, more than enough to create iron atoms. First generation stars would have more iron in them than supposed.

Do we have two quasars ejected at the same time from the galactic core?

On the question of aether drift. I think everyone on this board should take a look at this work. arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406065 I dont know if this guy will look at the idea of a ftl gravity or not. He does talk about a Lorentzian relativity though.

What I get is the speed of light plus or minus about 72 metes per second. To get the aether drift velocities means to divide twice that, 0.144 km/second by the fine structure constant, about 7.29E-03 Then Ive assumed that Robert Carroll is correct in saying that the aether bubble around the Earth takes an inverse fourth power. The result is that we are moving at half the speed of light but the bubble drops that down to about 19.6 km per second.

That might sound barking mad but its the speed Id expect if we are in fact inside a sub atomic particle with an angular velocity at the edge of the speed of light.

Having had a quick read of that paper, I think this paragraph is the most important point to think about.

"We emphasise that the use of Lorentz transformations is absolutely crucial. In fact, in this case, differently from the classical prediction v obs = v earth , the fringe shifts measured with an interferometer operating in a dielectric medium of refractive index N medium are proportional to the Fresnels drag coefficient 1 - 1 / N^2 medium . Therefore, a rather large kinematical velocity v earth of about 200 km/s is seen, in an in-air-operating optical system, as a small observable velocity v obs of about 8 4 km/s. At the same time, the same v earth of about 200 km/s becomes an effective v obs of about 3km/s for the Kennedys and Illingworth experiments (performed in an apparatus filled with helium) or a v obs of about 1 km/s for the Joos experiment (performed in an evacuated housing), in agreement with the experimental results. Finally, such a value v earth of about 200 km/s, deduced from the absolute magnitude of the fringe shifts, is also consistent with the typical range of kinematical velocities 195 km/s <=v earth <=211 km/s (see table V of ref.[15]) needed by Miller to describe the variations of the ether-drift effect in different epochs of the year."

My explicit assumption is that the gravitational Lorentzian is equivalent to the electromagnetic Lorentzian. The Ratio of c^2 / b^2 and v^2 / c^2 is the same. In effect I'm looking at a set up where v^2 has been slowed right down to almost zero, in other words a bec.

So, I need a scaling factor to convert the results to those of Dayton Miller and others. The scaling factor turns out to be the fine structure constant.

Can we use this guys experiments to our purposes? The only problem I see with it is with possible errors. Dayton Miller's data gives me a variation in the speed of light of about ten millionth of c. the round trip path; round the interferometer; was about 64 metres, thats about six microns. That is not an easy task when the measurements have to be taken over long periods. Temperature variations spring to mind.

The gravitational motion is "frozen solid" from the extreme BEC conditions of a gravitostatic field. Otherwise, there would be zero G Forces or gravitational force pointing downwards.

Halton Arp is totally correct about Quasars and GRB's High Redshifts ejected from parent lower redshift galactic sources. What is apparent is the jets form an elongated grouping sometimes forming chains of galaxies all related. So, Halton thinks that the electrons initially have a smaller mass in Quasars thus emmitting high redshifted light. We have high electron acceleration from matter/antimatter dynamo generating tremendous magnetic fields from a constant source of gravitons being captured around black hole. Inside black hole the neg r.i. region contains a reverse motion antimatter core generating a reverse magnetic field. This field is also accelerating virtual positrons kicking them up towards the top and bottom event horizon---outer layer forms a polar ring currents of electron/positron annihilation zone around jets generating x-rays and gamma rays. This is a layered phenomenon, with slowest motions on external and fastest in central core and vertical jet. The flipping of graviton energy is conducted across the dynamo and forms antigravitons which are being broadcast FTL from this space. While the slower light speed particles surround this vortex and either form huge clouds of antimatter and annihilation hot spots. The reason electrons in Quasars have less mass is because their magnetic properties are weaker due to graviton field more condensed from such extreme rotational motion around dynamo core. This results in less graviton energy for electrons as compared to an older larger galaxy with larger slower motion graviton field circulating around core.

Once creational processes generate mass around core then mass and external fields begins to drag down the clean direct line of inflowing gravitons, forms hot creational zones, and the process of galaxy building is back in business. Pressure bulgs from pregnant galaxies occurs on a cyclical basis and is regulated by over accumulation of heavy mass circulations around core. The antimatter core must spin so fast in reverse that a wave conditon is set up where the two opposing forces split a part forming the birth of two quasars. If the galaxy only has one developed jet then only one quasar is ejected. GRB's are more violent, and I have not researched how they are ejected.

Vacuum energy fluctuations, aether drift, and scalar phenomenon are interesting atmospherics. Reminds me of Tesla radiant energy or even tubes of force and most likely aether particles seem to me to be left over residual energies/waveforms from this much higher frequency gravitonic bombardment. Kind of like ocean spray while the real substance is this instant communications between forward and reverse time which drives this whole process in our scale of motion. I am not sure where Aether drift fits in, except that as you suggested we are part of a BEC particle and that totally makes sense to me.

As for age of Universe, well we will never figure that out since this self creational process is perpetual. Our region may have been ejected as a pair of forward and reverse time quasars from a much higher dimensional energy source and is spinning around itself in a group of particles all paired within a gigantic paired motion, that again is paired it could go on and on and since space is infinite in all directions---well, there is no end to the Universe. John