But Quasars are not believed to be ejected from galaxies, but galaxies themselves with black holes which are very active due to material being dumped on them. The ejection idea was that of Arp who thought he saw associations between galaxies and quasars, but seem to be just chance alignments.

Quasars are believed to be objects ejected from the centers of the Galaxies (or Black holes). Do all of them blow outwards in opposite direction to us in order to agree all of them with such high redshifts ? Note that the motion of galaxies is random! While, even no one Quasar exhibits a blueshift !. Moreover, according to their high redshift all of the Quasars are very distant away. But the universe is isotropic, so our position is not preferred. Hence why we did not observe any nearby Quasar? According to the isotropy, a distant observer should observe the Quasars very distant with respect to him, that is they should be nearby to us!. Contradiction. According to Hubble`s law, if the object is bright then its near by and the distant objects are faint. The Quasars are very bright, why they should not  be nearby? Why we just accept one part from Hubble`s law, that is: the high redshift of the Quasar indicates that its distant and ignored the other part, that is: the brightness of the Quasars indicates they are nearby?!. Finally, Why our Galaxy and many other nearby Galaxies did not eject Quasars from their centers? Why this job is exclusive for distant Galaxies? Because our Galaxy and many other nearby Galaxies are inactive, said astronomers. Why they are the inactive among the active distant Galaxies? False justification. It is clear such Paradigm is not satisfactory and insufficient, it depends on many unjustified reasons , many contradictions and inconsistent. The paradigm must be reconsidered and readjusted. The bright the Quasar the high the redshift the distant it is. The bright the Galaxy the low redshift the nearby it is. Brightest Galaxies associated with brightest Quasars, but faint Galaxies not. So, if Quasars agree in their brightness they disagree with their redshifts. Yes, the scenario concerning the Quasars no more than speculations and guesses to fabricate suitable explanation to current observations. The problem relies on the similarity of the cosmological redshift to the Doppler redshift that both of them cause recession speed. The first by the expansion of the spacetime and other by receding within the spacetime. If the high redshift of the Quasar is due to the cosmological redshift of the expanding spacetime, why shouldn't agree and coincide with the redshift of the hosting Galaxy. The cosmological redshift must be interpreted in a different way, as I do, as manifests the curvature of the hyperbolic spacetim. Astronomers have found many galaxy pairs and galaxy groups in which the members are evidently close to each other —even interacting— yet have redshifts that are radically at odds! Their redshifts don’t make sense: If two galaxies are roughly in the same place then their measured redshifts should agree with each other, since redshift is supposed to be a measure of their distance (although the redshift may include a relatively minor Doppler component due to local motion). The observational fact that they don’t is considered anomalous. The mystery is in the cause, and also why some of the anomalies are so extreme. Locally the spacetime is flat, there is no cosmological redshift. For example, observations tell us that space within galaxies, which are rather diffuse objects, do not expand. Thus, where is the “border line” in space which divides expanding space from non expanding space? Two galaxies within our Local Group, including Andromeda, and a few galaxies in the Virgo Cluster display blueshifts and so are moving toward us, but this results from their local motion (peculiar velocity). Why nearby galaxies exhibit blue-shift? Because its peculiar velocity is greater than its recession velocity! The answer is more convenient if we say: Locally the spacetime is flat through which the curvature is negligible (no cosmological redshift), where the random peculiar velocity dominates. If cosmological redshift has nothing to do with the Doppler effect, how do we know that galaxies that are very far away are also receding from us ? How to compare between two unrelated concepts, the Doppler redshift and the cosmological redshift ? Andromeda galaxy is blueshifted because its sufficiently nearby where the spacetime is approximately flat and special relativity works. Its blueshifted according to the Doppler effect in flat spacetime.

But Quasars are not believed to be ejected from galaxies, but galaxies themselves with black holes which are very active due to material being dumped on them. The ejection idea was that of Arp who thought he saw associations between galaxies and quasars, but seem to be just chance alignments.

  Robert Anthony Watson 

However, no matter what  is  the source creating the Quasar:

Why we just accepted one part from Hubble`s law, that is: the high redshift of the Quasar indicates that its very distant far away, while we ignored the other part, that is: the brightness of the Quasars indicates they are nearby?!

Quasars redshifts don`t exhibit time dilation.

The light signature of quasars located 6 billion light years from us and those 10 billion light years away were exactly the same, without a hint of time dilation( M. Hawkins arXiv:1004.1824v1 [ ).

So, if the Quasar`s redshift does not relate to how distant far the Quasar is, we must accept the brightness of the Quasar to indicate its nearby!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824v1

Hi Salah,

SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis might be able to shed light on some of the inconsistencies with the current standard cosmology model that you point out:

we may be overestimating the Radius of the universe, and the most distant stars are 1 B or less LY distant.

If so assuming the relative distance is valid between the two examples that were of = brightness, they are much closer in distance to each other, so being about the same brightness is not as much a problem.

A slightly larger more distant galaxy might appear the same brightness as a closer, smaller one.

So the amount of CR would still be a valid tool to know the relative distance, the more CR the more distant overall, everything else being =.

Also under SPIRAL the 'visible' universe approximates the entire universe.

So we are at the the approximate center of the entire universe with the optimal view position.

So Stars / Galaxies did not form randomly 'out there'  but by here and moved away during a cosmic expansion event early on.

So Quasars might be the light trails that could not keep up with the cosmic expansion that exceeded light speed, whose source burnt out, blew up, went cold, or..? 

Hi Roger,

According to the isotropic principle our position is not preferred. Any observer is centered, arbitrary , on his own Universe. Why all Quasars are distant away from any observer, thus the observer center position is preferred, which contradicts the   isotropic principle !

The the brightness of the Quasar -even its size is small- is greater than the brightness of the whole parent Galaxy.

Why all Quasars are distant away from any observer, thus the observer center position is preferred, which contradicts the isotropic principle !

Their distance from us does not indicate anisotropy. We do not see nearby quasars because in all but a few cases, their accretion engines "switched off" billions of years ago. As we look further into space, we look further back in time; so the era when quasars were active, bright, and easy to detect corresponds to a great lookback distance now.

To put it another way, be careful of questioning the spatial homogeneity of a population, when its visibility is variable over cosmic timescales.

Why we just accepted one part from Hubble`s law, that is: the high redshift of the Quasar indicates that its very distant far away, while we ignored the other part, that is: the brightness of the Quasars indicates they are nearby?!

Salah, let me turn your question around...Mainstream astronomy actually "accepts" all parts of Hubble's Law, because the processes allowing quasars to be so luminous (and therefore as bright as they are at enormous distances) are well understood, and the models stand up to observational scrutiny. The discrepancy here is not that the vast majority of astronomers have a problem with applying Hubble's Law to quasars (they don't), but rather that a very small minority of astronomers do not accept the best working description of a quasar. I have to ask, why is that?

Science needs its mavericks, its radical thinkers-outside-the-box; but more often than not, it becomes clear that what was thought inside the box was already correct, or at most needed some small tweaking. At that point, it is beholden on the maverick to graciously accept that his or her tangent, while a worthwhile endeavour at the time, ultimately led nowhere.

Now sometimes, as appeared to be the case with the late Halton Arp, they have too much invested in their hypothesis to take this step. I suppose that is understandable. But what I don't understand is how such mavericks tend to attract "disciples" in the period when their hypothesis is already shown to be a dead end.

Hi Ray Butler,

We do not see nearby quasars because in all but a few cases, their accretion engines "switched off" billions of years ago.

Why  these  nearby accretion engines "switched off" billions of years ago ?

It is just a fabrication to fabricate suitable explanation to current unexplained observations.

Why this job is exclusive for distant Galaxies? Because our Galaxy and many other nearby Galaxies are inactive, said astronomers. Why they are the inactive among the active distant Galaxies? False justification. It is clear such Paradigm is not satisfactory and insufficient, it depends on many unjustified reasons , many contradictions and inconsistent. The paradigm must be reconsidered and readjusted.

it depends on many unjustified reasons , many contradictions and inconsistent.

It appears to be consistent with the evidence, including large-scale numerical simulations of galaxy formation and evolution. For example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/full/nature03597.html   and  https://www.mpg.de/513329/pressRelease20050207

Why  these  nearby accretion engines "switched off" billions of years ago ?

Because they simply ran out of proximate gas to accrete. It's like asking the question "why do stars die?" Things evolve over time, and using up a finite reservoir of resources often triggers a big change. In the specific case of quasars, once they grow large enough, they shut themselves off, by dispersing the gas from their environment. Extract from the 2nd link above:

"We’ve discovered that the energy released by black holes during a quasar phase powers a strong wind that prevents material from falling into the black hole," Springel said. "This process inhibits further black hole growth and shuts off the quasar, just as star formation stops inside a galaxy. As a result, the black hole mass and the mass of stars in a galaxy are closely linked. Our results also explain for the first time why the quasar lifetime is such a short phase compared to the life of a galaxy."

In April 2010, Marcus Chown wrote in an article entitled “Time waits for no quasar—even though it should”1 for New Scientist online,

“Why do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from Earth? No one can yet answer this new question

He says no one can answer this question. But this question has already been answered before it was even asked. To understand this we need some background.

Quasars are assumed to be supermassive black holes with the mass of a galaxy2 that are the early progenitors of the mature galaxies we see around us today.. They nearly all exhibit extremely large redshifts in their emitted light and the big bang community believes that these redshifts are nearly entirely due to cosmological expansion. Therefore it follows that these massive objects are extremely bright and are being observed at some stage only several billion years after the alleged origin of the Universe in the big bang. Hence, from their redshifts when interpreted as resulting from cosmological expansion of the Universe, using Einstein’s general theory of relativity, it follows that the greater the redshift the greater the effect of the distortion of time at the quasar. That is, local clocks on quasars at greater redshifts should run slower than local clocks on quasars at lower redshifts, which are interpreted to mean that they are closer to us. (This post is based on my original article “Quasars again defy a big bang explanation” published in the Journal of Creation 24(2):8-9, 2010.)

No time dilation

But that is where the problem comes in. Mike Hawkins of the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, UK, looked at light from quasars and he found no time dilation. He used observations of nearly 900 quasars made over periods of up to 28 years. According to the article, he “compared patterns in the light between quasars about 6 billion light years from us with those at 10 billion light years away.” But the distances assigned here are actually derived from the assumed cosmology and the Hubble law. What was really measured was the redshifts of those quasars. However the problem arises because quasars scintillate or their brightness varies. This scintillation can have periods of as little as a week, or even a day. That tells us something about the size of the object at the core, since that time should be of the scale of the light-travel time across the light-emitting.

Chown writes,

“All quasars are broadly similar, and their light is powered by matter heating up as it swirls into the giant black holes at the galaxies’ cores. So one would expect that a brightness variation on the scale of, say, a month in the closer group would be stretched to two months in the more distant group.”

Then he goes on to quote Hawkins: “To my amazement, the [light signatures] were exactly the same … There was no time dilation in the more distant objects.” [emphasis added]

But according to Einstein there should be observable time dilation if they are at their cosmological distances, i.e. at distances determined only from their redshifts and big bang cosmology. The big bang believer is amazed here because using a different line of evidence, the type Ia supernovae, and the redshifts of the galaxies they are observed in, they claim observation of the expected “time dilation” in the rate at which the brightness of the supernovae explosions fade way. That is, the more distant supernova explosions seem to dim more slowly than those nearby. But is that really the case? See Is the Universe really expanding — the evidence revisited.

In the article, Chown says that Hawkins classes possible explanations as either “wacky” or “not so wacky”. The wacky ideas include the obvious that the quasars are not so far away after all and that their redshifts are not indicators of distance at all. Chown claims that this idea has been “discredited”. It may have been discredited by the big bang believers but only by circular reasoning not by robust science.

https://biblescienceforum.com/2016/08/16/quasar-exhibit-no-time-dilation-and-still-defy-a-big-bang-explanation/

SAM: Quasars redshifts don`t exhibit time dilation. [M. Hawkins arXiv:1004.1824]

The method used by Hawkins was based on a Fourier Transform and needed a very long period of observation, something like 70 years at least, so it didn't work. Unfortunately he interpreted that as no time dilation rather than an inappropriate method. The paper you quote was from 2010 and followed an earlier version about 10 years before.

Two years later, another team using a different method confirmed that quasars do exhibit time dilation, see the article and pre-print attached.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/may/04/quasars-shine-a-new-light-on-cosmic-distances

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191

In April 2010, Marcus Chown wrote in an article entitled “Time waits for no quasar—even though it should”1 for New Scientist online,

The edifice of the big bang hangs on the interpretation that the quasar redshifts are cosmological. If they are not:

it brings into question the origin of quasars, and,

it means the quasars may be nearby, not as distant as their redshifts and the Hubble law would indicate.

 This latter idea is linked to the work of Halton Arp3 and others that showed strong correlation between parent galaxies that have ejected quasars from their active cores. See Fig. 2. The origin of all matter was not at the big bang but over time in a grand ongoing creation scenario. Arp believed quasars were ejected from the active hearts of parent galaxies and their redshifts were largely intrinsic, not distance related. This has very interesting creationist interpretations.

  Certainly the notions are poison to the big bang, else why would Prof. Joseph Silk have written,

   “Only by disputing the interpretation of quasar redshifts as a cosmological distance indicator can this conclusion be avoided [emphasis added].”5

   Because most of the high redshift objects in the Universe are quasars, if their redshifts are due to cosmological expansion then they are good evidence for an expanding universe. The conclusion that Silk means is the expanding universe. If the quasar redshifts are not reliable as a distance indicator, as Arp’s hypothesis of ejection of quasars from the active cores of relatively nearby galaxies suggests, then the conclusion that the universe is expanding can be avoided. Arp, in fact, believed in a static universe.

   More recent explanations

   I decided to look to see if anyone has an answer now to this conundrum posed by Hawkins. I searched the web (in August 2016) looking for a big bang solution to the lack of time dilation in quasars and I found nothing of any significance.

    Interestingly, I found, about two years after this New Scientist article was published and a news report was published online6 discussing the idea, published in Physical Review Letters, of using the light variations of quasars, but tested on 14 quasars, to determine their distances independently of their redshifts and hence use them as a standard candle, in the same way that the type Ia supernovae are used, and hence test cosmology. The article states:6

  … as it happens, quasars also have regularities in their light curves – how they brighten and dim over time – that could easily be used to determine their redshifts. Dejan Stojkovic from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, US, and colleagues found that using the light curves to calculate the redshift of a quasar, independent from its luminosity–distance relation, would then allow quasars to be used as standard candles.

From this I can only conclude that the work of Hawkins has either been ignored or that the big bang paradigm is so strongly believed that Hawkins’ conclusion must be considered faulty. So much so that they would use the very evidence that Hawkins’ data indicates that there is no redshift dependence in the intensity variations of quasars. Therefore they looked for data segments of available data in 14 quasars, of a total of 56 that they had access to, to get an agreement with their new idea. They do admit though that they don’t know if this method could apply to all quasar types. But quite obviously the elephant in the room has been ignored, that is, that when taken over 900 quasars, of different redshifts, no time dilation in their light variations is seen, hence no redshift dependence in those light variations

SAM: In April 2010, Marcus Chown wrote in an article entitled “Time waits for no quasar—even though it should”1 for New Scientist online,

I know, but that was two years before, an effective method of measuring time dilation was found. Hawkins work didn't rule out time dilation, it only failed to find it but subsequent researchers succeeded.

SAM: ... the work of Halton Arp3 and others that showed strong correlation between parent galaxies that have ejected quasars from their active cores.

Again that is decades out of date, he was working from crude photographic plates and very limited observations. Subsequent surveys which were much larger and of far higher detail when CCD cameras became available and especially space based telescopes showed his putative correlations didn't exist.

Hubble’s law describes a uniformly expanding flat universe. Hubble’s law doesn`t explain why distant objects were receding fastest. There is an approximately linear relationship between redshift and distance at small scales for all the FLRW models, and departures from linearity at larger scales can be used to measure spatial curvature. Locally the spacetime is flat. For distant objects, the imprint of the curvature is significant, where the spacetime does no longer remain flat. The redshifts from such distant objects increase according to the increase in the curvature of the hyperbolic spacetime. The cosmological (gravitational) redshift can be interpreted as a degree of the hyperbolicity of the curved spacetime.

Locally the spacetime is flat, there is no cosmological redshift. For example, observations tell us that space within galaxies, which are rather diffuse objects, do not expand. Thus, where is the “border line” in space which divides expanding space from non expanding space? Two galaxies within our Local Group, including Andromeda, and a few galaxies in the Virgo Cluster display blueshifts and so are moving toward us, but this results from their local motion (peculiar velocity). Why nearby galaxies exhibit blue-shift? Because its peculiar velocity is greater than its recession velocity! The answer is more convenient if we say: Locally the spacetime is flat through which the curvature is negligible (no cosmological redshift), where the random peculiar velocity dominates. If cosmological redshift has nothing to do with the Doppler effect, how do we know that galaxies that are very far away are also receding from us ? How to compare between two unrelated concepts, the Doppler redshift and the cosmological redshift ? Andromeda galaxy is blueshifted because its sufficiently nearby where the spacetime is approximately flat and special relativity works. Its blueshifted according to the Doppler effect in flat spacetime.

SAM: Hubble’s law describes a uniformly expanding flat universe.

The Hubble Law is valid whether it is flat or not, it just needs to be homogeneous and isotropic.

SAM: Hubble’s law doesn`t explain why distant objects were receding fastest.

It does, the value of the "constant" in the law was higher in the past. The law says speed is proportional to distance only when measured over a surface of common cosmological age.

SAM: There is an approximately linear relationship between redshift and distance at small scales for all the FLRW models, and departures from linearity at larger scales can be used to measure spatial curvature.

Departures from linearity are expected because for a matter or radiation dominated universe, the Hubble "Constant" falls as the inverse of cosmological age. Departures from that curve can tell us about curvature.

SAM: Locally the spacetime is flat. For distant objects, the imprint of the curvature is significant, where the spacetime does no longer remain flat.

Curvature is the same everywhere. If it isn't flat, it would have been stronger in the past but the current best measurement from the Planck mission says it is flat and always has been.

SAM: Locally the spacetime is flat, there is no cosmological redshift.

Globally, it appears to be flat. Locally, Hubble expansion and redshift is proportional to distance.

SAM: For example, observations tell us that space within galaxies, which are rather diffuse objects, do not expand. Thus, where is the “border line” in space which divides expanding space from non expanding space? Two galaxies within our Local Group, including Andromeda, and a few galaxies in the Virgo Cluster display blueshifts and so are moving toward us, but this results from their local motion (peculiar velocity). Why nearby galaxies exhibit blue-shift? Because its peculiar velocity is greater than its recession velocity!

Exactly. The average for the Virgo Cluster is redshift but the mean peculiar velocity is higher than the Hubble flow velocity so some galaxies at the high end of the distribution of peculiar velocities are moving towards us at the moment.

SAM: The answer is more convenient if we say: Locally the spacetime is flat through which the curvature is negligible (no cosmological redshift), where the random peculiar velocity dominates.

That's not quite accurate though. Overall the universe is flat, locally within a cluster of galaxies, the curvature is positive, it is a shallow potential well and that's what keeps the galaxies bound together. The peculiar velocities reflect the statistics of the Virial Theorem (once they have relaxed). In the large voids between superclusters, there must be slight negative curvature so that the average is flat, and that causes the voids to expand.

SAM: If cosmological redshift has nothing to do with the Doppler effect, how do we know that galaxies that are very far away are also receding from us ?

They are very closely related, but basically the redshift in the FLRW metric indicates the rate of increase of the overall scale factor so still relates to increasing mean distances.

SAM: How to compare between two unrelated concepts, the Doppler redshift and the cosmological redshift ?

They are not unrelated.

SAM: Andromeda galaxy is blueshifted because its sufficiently nearby where the spacetime is approximately flat and special relativity works. Its blueshifted according to the Doppler effect in flat spacetime.

We tend to think in terms of two different processes, the peculiar velocity of any galaxy anywhere generates a Doppler shift and the Hubble Flow generates cosmological redshift, then we observe a frequency which is altered by both, but really the two effects are both caused by the angle between the worldlines of the source and observer galaxies, it is just convenient for us to break that into two parts so we can use separate theories, the uniform average motion given by the Hubble Law and the local peculiar velocity related to the Virial Theorem and the specific past history of the galaxy.

Hi George Dishman

Geometry is the study of the local structure of the manifold, by measurement or observations such as Planck mission which measure the local spacetime to be approximately flat 96%.

Topology is the study of the global structure of the manifold  just mathematically. The spacetime of the universe is globally hyperbolic as we did prove mathematically. Moreover, the developed laws of gravity due to the hyperbolic spacetime fit the current observations regarded the flat rotation curve and the accelerating expansion of the universe without need for Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Article The hyperbolic geometry of the universe and the wedding of g...

Article The Big Bang hyperbolic universe neither needs inflation nor...

SAM: Geometry is the study of the local structure of the manifold, by measurement or observations such as Planck mission which measure the local spacetime ..

Geometry also applies globally. Planck used the CMB so it is not local, it measured the global curvature.

SAM: .. to be approximately flat 96%.

I think you missed a "9" there, the mssion measured the global curvature density to be 0.0±0.4% of the critical value, or between 99.6% and 100.4%.

SAM: Topology is the study of the global structure of the manifold

No, topology is the study of its connectivity.

SAM: The spacetime of the universe is globally hyperbolic as we did prove mathematically.

The Planck observations say it is indistinguishable from flat.

Hi George Dishman

By simple logic the spacetime can never be globally flat. The flat spacetime is an empty matter spacetime subject to special relativity.. Why Einstein spent 9 years to introduce the General Relativity? The present of matter curved the spacetime.

  Einstein's Equivalence Principle: In small enough regions of spacetime, the laws of physics reduce to those of special relativity in flat spacetime; it is impossible to detect the existence of a gravitational field by means of local experiments. The flat spacetime constraints the domain of applicability of special relativity. By locally we mean a sufficient small spacetime that could be regarded approximately flat (Euclidean), through which light propagates in Euclidean straight lines.

SAM: By simple logic the spacetime can never be globally flat. The flat spacetime is an empty matter spacetime subject to special relativity.

I missed a point in what you typed, spacetime is not flat, when we talk about the universe being "flat", it is only the space part that it describes. Flat means that, at any given time an over the largest scales, the space part is approximately Euclidean. Of course the model is of an expanding universe so the time part is curved.

SAM: The present of matter curved the spacetime.

Right, and the varying rate of expansion is a consequence of that, but the curvature of the space part depends on the total energy density. If it is too high, then the space part has positive curvature, if it is too low, the curvature would be negative (your hyperbolic geometry) and if it is exactly some critical value, then space is Euclidean.

SAM: By locally we mean a sufficient small spacetime that could be regarded approximately flat (Euclidean), through which light propagates in Euclidean straight lines.

Yes, that works, but as you go to larger scales, the lines get bent by gravitational lensing by galaxies. However, on even larger scales, the distribution of galaxies becomes uniform and it is the mean density that controls overall spatial curvature.

The numbers I quoted were from the Planck 2013 results, those from the 2015 report are slightly tighter. See section 6.2.4 of the linked paper for a discussion of the subject and in particular eqn. (50) which is their result.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01589

George Dishman, 

You said "I missed a point in what you typed, spacetime is not flat, when we talk about the universe being "flat", it is only the space part that it describes. Flat means that, at any given time an over the largest scales, the space part is approximately Euclidean. Of course the model is of an expanding universe so the time part is curved.

How the time part is curved? Now you use my theory? Now you use my transformation when I considered space is invariant and it is only time!!! When you used the time part curved that is according to the uncertainty principle by the vacuum fluctuations according to my transformation which is leading to the anisotropic of the speed of light globally. And by the retardation in my transformation it is resulted all the reference frames are equivalent. The explains completely the CMB anisotropy. So do not use my theory to explain the failures of Einstein's relativity. You understand well I succeeded in quantization of gravity and I solved all the problems of physics from Higgs to Galaxies!!! Salah is completely according to my theory according to QFT which resulted in my theory.

Azzam,

"explains completely the CMB anisotropy"

You can explain the Doppler peaks in the CMB angular power spectrum, which is a clear sign of  pressure waves trapped in an expanding plasma fluid for 380,000 years?

Robert, be aware that Azzam considers the Lorentz Transforms to be wrong and instead is using both the Galilean and Voigt Transforms simultaneously. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about whether it is worth discussing that with him.

Azzam, nobody is using "your theory", we are talking about the FLRW metric here.

If you want to continue the previous conversation, answer my question in the other thread. If you don't know what your own "theory" predicts, you can't expect me to know either so that discussion ended when you gave up there as far as I am concerned.

George Dishman,

You said "Azzam, nobody is using "your theory", we are talking about the FLRW metric here."

No GD!!! You understand well how you use my theory when you used the curved time part!!! Even you used my theory to explain the twin paradox because you understand well in my theory the twin paradox is disappeared and how it is disappeared. If you are honest by using my theory, then  FWLR metric describes a homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe, thus according to that Are all frames of reference truly equivalent?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_all_frames_of_reference_truly_equivalent

I solved this question by considering the delay or the retardation, and according to my transformation all frames of reference truly equivalent, and the speed of light globally anisotropic. 

Really can you answer this question which is related to global and local in SRT???

Local versions of the (special) principle of relativity say that if the same type of experiment is conducted in two isolated, unaccelerated laboratories, then the outcomes of those experiments must be the same. Global versions of the principle say that if you take a physically possible world and boost the entire material content of that world, you get another physically possible world. Global and local in SRT are independent, so how can you solve this problem? I solved this problem in my theory!!!

You said "If you want to continue the previous conversation, answer my question in the other thread. "

I can't answer your question because your question is nonsense according to physics. Your question is related to classical physics, and my theory is quantum field theory. So how can I explain QFT according to classical physics...no way!!! Your question is only Straw man!! You see how all physicists even relativists in the other thread were against you!! They understood you are talking nonsense!!!!

Also what about Sagnac effect??

Take my transformation x=R2(x'-vt') t=R2(t-vx'/c2) y=Ry' and z=Rz'

Space is invariant and it is only time which is related to time dilation. My transformation by considering the delay or the retardation is a transformation of acceleration by  the vacuum fluctuations. It expresses about the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle.

Take the time term in my transformation, we get

t+=R2(t+vx'/c2) and t-=R2(t-vx'/c2) thus from that we get delta (t)=t+-t-=R2(2vx'/c2) and since space is invariant then we get x'=x=L and in this case we get delta (t)=R2(2vL/c2)

Which is exactly the same result of explaining Sagnac effect in the framework of ether theory but instead of the ether theory it is vacuum energy dependent, and by the equivalence principle, it is gravitational potential dependent. Also according to my transformation the Sagnac effect on a rotating plate, the speed of light is also shown to be anisotropic globally by the uncertainty principle by the vacuum fluctuations.

Review these papers

Classical and Relativistic Derivation of the Sagnac Effect, Wolfgang Engelhardt

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4075

And http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1499-26-yang-ho-choi-on-constancy-of-the-speed-of-light-in-the-global-positioning-system.html

Also that explains  why Aether field rejected by Michelson Morley experiment in 20th century, but now in 21st century Higgs field is accepted ? 

Higgs field can be explained completely according to my theory. It is now QFT!!!

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1499-26-yang-ho-choi-on-constancy-of-the-speed-of-light-in-the-global-positioning-system.html

Talk about it in the other thread Azzam, stop spamming the entire site.

George Dishman

I reply to you by physics GD!! The topic is related to quantization of gravity, and as you know I succeeded in quantization of gravity!! I solved light bending by gravity, Mercury precession, Pioneer anomaly, Shapiro delay as relativistic as in QFT, not classical as in GR. I showed you how GR is only approximation. You understand well how according to my theory no need to dark matter or dark energy. Even infinities disappeared!!!

Even this RG is a good prove that I succeeded in quantization of gravity because my theory answers this question completely!!!

Review also these RG, and you know the answer in my theory!!!!

GD!!!

"Why do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from Earth? No one can yet answer this new question""

You know now I answered this question!!!!

https://biblescienceforum.com/2016/08/16/quasar-exhibit-no-time-dilation-and-still-defy-a-big-bang-explanation/

Good bye!!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Chaos_Theory_Saves_Planet

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_basis_for_Higgs_explanations_involving_zig-zag_motion

SAM: I searched the web (in August 2016) looking for a big bang solution to the lack of time dilation in quasars and I found nothing of any significance.

It sounds like your search last month was too narrow: "looking for a big bang solution to the lack of time dilation in quasars" is fine, but it doesn't also pursue the likelihood that there is no such lack for the big bang theory to solve, and that someone had already established that by observation.

So, look back to the post immediately before your wrote that: George Dishman has kindly provided you with link to a peer reviewed paper which states:

Note that this implies that the time dilation (which is simply a counterpart of the redshift) is included in the quasar light curves, in contrast with conclusions in [4].

...reference [4] being the Hawkins 2010 paper.

So surely that settles the matter?

Ray Butler

I think  its a kind of ideology to accept a less than 2 years research concern with 14 quasars and ignore a more than 28 years research concern with 900 quasars.

      New Scientist article was published and a news report was published online6 discussing the idea, published in Physical Review Letters, of using the light variations of quasars, but tested on 14 quasars, to determine their distances independently of their redshifts and hence use them as a standard candle, in the same way that the type Ia supernovae are used, and hence test cosmology. The article states:

      … as it happens, quasars also have regularities in their light curves – how they brighten and dim over time – that could easily be used to determine their redshifts. Dejan Stojkovic from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, US, and colleagues found that using the light curves to calculate the redshift of a quasar, independent from its luminosity–distance relation, would then allow quasars to be used as standard candles.  From this I can only conclude that the work of Hawkins has either been ignored or that the big bang paradigm is so strongly believed that Hawkins’ conclusion must be considered faulty. So much so that they would use the very evidence that Hawkins’ data indicates that there is no redshift dependence in the intensity variations of quasars. Therefore they looked for data segments of available data in 14 quasars, of a total of 56 that they had access to, to get an agreement with their new idea. They do admit though that they don’t know if this method could apply to all quasar types. But quite obviously the elephant in the room has been ignored, that is, that when taken over 900 quasars, of different redshifts, no time dilation in their light variations is seen, hence no redshift dependence in those light variations.

SAM: no time dilation in their light variations is seen, hence no redshift dependence in those light variations.

That is your fundamental error, quasar light curves depend on stars and material falling so vary randomly which means there is no way to measure time dilation from them, it doesn't mean that anyone ever confirmed there was no time dilation. The newer study found a method that works with a fraction of quasars, roughly a quarter if the 14 of 56 is representative, so probably it would work with another couple of hundred if it could be applied to all the 900.

It is the old mistake people keep making, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

George Disman,

You said "That is your fundamental error, quasar light curves depend on stars and material falling so vary randomly which means there is no way to measure time dilation from them..."

That means the time dilation is resulted from the retardation or the delay depending on the gravitational and that leading to the a decrease in the speed of light globally depending on the gravitational potential and that explains the Hubble law which is against the equivalence principle of Einstein. In this paper J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008

Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation.

Also by the wave-particle duality, the escape velocity of the free falling object must be decreased also depending on the gravitational potential, and that explains the Hubble law without any need to the big bang, or dark energy or dark matter.

That was observed in the Pioneer anomaly 10/11. In my paper "The Exact Solution of The Pioneer Anomaly According to The General Theory of Relativity and The Hubble's Law" http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

According to my solution, there are two terms of decelerations that controls the Pioneer anomaly. The first is produced by moving the Pioneer spacecraft through the gravitational field of the Sun, which causes the velocity of the spacecraft to be decreased according to the Schwarzschild Geometry of freely infalling particle. This

deceleration is responsible for varying behaviour of the Pioneer anomaly in Turyshev The second term is produced by the Hubble’s law which is constant and equals to the Hubble’s constant multiplied by the speed of light in vacuum.

What I found The first which is produced by moving the Pioneer spacecraft through the gravitational field of the Sun and which causes the velocity of the spacecraft to be decreased according to the Schwarzschild Geometry of freely infalling particle, is the same term which is responsible for Mercury precession. But according to equivalence principle of GR that must not be the solution for the Pioneer anomaly...why? because that against the homogeneous, isotropic solution of Einstein's field equation. 

Anderson, who is retired from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), is that study’s first author. He finds, so “it’s either new physics or old physics we haven’t discovered yet.” New physics could be a variation on Newton’s laws, whereas an example of as-yet-to-be-discovered old physics would be a cloud of dark matter trapped around the sun.

But now we understand there is no dark matter or dark. Now we understand what is causing the Pioneer anomaly depending on the retardation or the delay  depending on the gravitational potential.

In this paper J. Gine ́, “On the origin of the anomalous precession of Mercury’s perihelion,” e-print arXiv:0510086v4 [physics.gen-ph]. 

The author recovers an ancient work of Gerber in 1898 as a precursor of the retarded theories. In this paper Gerber gave an explanation of the anomalous precession of the Mercury's perihelion in terms of a velocity--dependent potential.

Because of that you escape always to answer my question,  FWLR metric describes a homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe, thus according to that Are all frames of reference truly equivalent?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_all_frames_of_reference_truly_equivalent

Also,  Local versions of the (special) principle of relativity say that if the same type of experiment is conducted in two isolated, unaccelerated laboratories, then the outcomes of those experiments must be the same. Global versions of the principle say that if you take a physically possible world and boost the entire material content of that world, you get another physically possible world. Global and local in SRT are independent, so how can you solve this problem?

Sagnac Effect : in a circular interferometer, the light beam 1 having the same direction as the direction of the disk rotation, and the second light beam 2, having the opposite direction. The time passage of beam 1 is slower while the time passage of beam 2 is faster. 

Sagnac Effect (1913):  the transit time is no longer the same in the two directions – the signal traveling with the direction of the spin takes longer to go around the disk than the signal traveling against the direction of  the spin,

Sagnac Effect has no well convenient explanation, yet.

  Quasars redshifts don`t exhibit time dilation. Quasars have redshifts variation not correlated with time dilation. The light signature of quasars located 6 billion light years from us and those 10 billion light years away were exactly the same, without a hint of time dilation. This quasar conundrum doesn`t seem to have an obvious explanation.

  Thus the high redshifts of quasars may not necessarily represent their distances. Further, in some observations, the redshifts have been found to exhibit some periodicity in their distributions as represented by the Karlsson formula (Arp et al. 1990, Burbidge & Napier. 2001). The periodicity further makes it difficult for the redshift to represent distance.

 However,we may  try to resolve the non-existing time dilation of the quasars redshifts by interpreted those redshifts as an intrinsic redshifts due to Sagnac effects to the rotations around their axes.

SAM: The time passage of beam 1 is slower while the time passage of beam 2 is faster.

The words "slower" and "faster" usually refer to speeds so are inappropriate for "time passage" which is a duration.

SAM : Sagnac Effect (1913):  the transit time is no longer the same in the two directions – the signal traveling with the direction of the spin takes longer to go around the disk than the signal traveling against the direction of  the spin,

That is correct, the signal travelling in the same direction as the rotation of the table has to travel farther because the table moves when the light is en route. Since light moving in both directions travels at c, the greater distance means greater duration.

SAM: Sagnac Effect has no well convenient explanation, yet.

What are you talking about, you just gave the explanation?

SAM: Quasars redshifts don`t exhibit time dilation.

Yes they do, I repeat below the 2012 paper that proves your statement is wrong.  think this is the third time I have given you this link, why do you persist in making these untrue statements?

SAM: Quasars have redshifts variation not correlated with time dilation.

That is not true, most quasars have no features from which a figure for time dilation  can be obtained. For those that do have such features, the time dilation matches the redshift in all cases.

SAM: The light signature of quasars located 6 billion light years from us and those 10 billion light years away were exactly the same, without a hint of time dilation.

That is not true, there is no example of a measured time dilation that does not match the redshift.

SAM: However,we may try to resolve the non-existing time dilation of the quasars redshifts by interpreted those redshifts as an intrinsic redshifts due to Sagnac effects to the rotations around their axes.

The Sagnac effect doesn't produce a frequency shift, it is a time delay which results in a constant phase shift due to the longer path taken by one beam.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191

SAM: Quasars redshifts don`t exhibit time dilation.

GD: Yes they do, I repeat below the 2012 paper that proves your statement is wrong.  think this is the third time I have given you this link, why do you persist in making these untrue statements?

I am reminded of this famous quote by John Maynard Keynes:

"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"

He was an economist, but I think the lesson is equally applicable to scientists.

SAM: However,we may try to resolve the non-existing time dilation of the quasars redshifts by interpreted those redshifts as an intrinsic redshifts due to Sagnac effects to the rotations around their axes.

Compact luminous astrophysical objects, whether slow (solar-type stars) or fast (pulsars) rotators, do not exhibit a net rotational redshift. They exhibit spectral line broadening from the combination of blue, red and no shifts across their face. You would have to invent a mechanism for why the blueshifted emission from the approaching side of each spinning quasar, plus the unshifted central emission, and all but the fastest portion (outer edge) of the redshifted emission, were all somehow blocked off from our view.

Invoking Sagnac effects does not help. As derived in sources such as http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm , "...there is no Doppler shift involved in a Sagnac device, because each successive wave crest in a given direction travels the same distance from transmitter to receiver, and clocks at those points show the same lapse of proper time, both classically and in the context of special relativity." and "...Needless to say, the difference in resonant frequency of the two stand waves in a ring laser due to the different optical path lengths is not to be confused with a Doppler shift".

http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Ray

Again I said :

I think its a kind of ideology to accept a less than 2 years research concern with 14 quasars and ignore a more than 28 years research concern with 900 quasars.

Ray: I repeat below the 2012 paper that proves your statement is wrong.

You cannot decide simply M Hawkins paper  (28 years - 900 Quasars) is wrong. It is more convincing than your ( two years - 14 Quasars). Be open mind and be free from mainstream ideology.

Salah, the point Ray and I are making is that you have failed to understand Hawkins' paper, he only reported that he had not been able to measure time dilation, he did not measure a time dilation that was in conflict with the redshift.

George and Ray,

M Hawkins is very clear, his finding is that: the redshift of the Quasars do not exhibit time dilation. Moreover, he gave many suggestions :

1. it means the quasars may be nearby, not as distant as their redshifts and the Hubble law would indicate

2. . The origin of all matter was not at the big bang but over time in a grand ongoing creation scenario.

3. The Universe is not expanding.

4.Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in timescale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected.

SAM: M Hawkins is very clear, his finding is that: the redshift of the Quasars do not exhibit time dilation.

Unfortunately he did write his paper that way but when you read the technical details, he did not actually measure a time dilation that caused a problem. He tried to use a method that, with hindsight, probably needs a longer span of observation to work. Subsequent observations have been successful in making the measurement and show no problems and that is why Hawkins work is considered out of date and not valid as a method.

SAM: Moreover, he gave many suggestions

He did but no explanation is required, quasars do show time dilation matching their redshift so his suggestions are superfluous.

SAM: I think its a kind of ideology to accept a less than 2 years research concern with 14 quasars and ignore a more than 28 years research concern with 900 quasars.

The ideology is actually in assuming that quantity trumps quality.

28 years and 900 quasars are impressive quantities, but that is irrelevant if the method was not sufficiently sensitive to detect the effect that it was looking for.

In the time since Hawkins' study, a more promising method applied to a high quality dataset has succeeded in detecting the time dilation effect.

Please note that I am differentiating between work quality and data/method/result quality. Hawkins clearly put a considerable effort into his work and did so with integrity. But that method applied over that timescale to that dataset was not able to yield a result of sufficient quality to truly test the time dilation hypothesis.

Like many an observational astronomer, I've been involved in some heroic efforts to rescue some kind of result from poor or limited data...you win some, you lose some.

SAM: You cannot decide simply M Hawkins paper (28 years - 900 Quasars) is wrong. It is more convincing than your ( two years - 14 Quasars). 

It's like so much else in scientific progress. CERN announced the Higgs boson detection, less than 4 years after switching on the LHC (quality). That followed decades of attempts with several other less well specified facilities (quantity).

Is it your belief, applying your logic, that these older failed attempts are "more convincing" by virtue of their quanitity and duration, and CERN must be wrong? I'm just wondering, what are your criteria for evidence to be convincing?

Ray, : I'm just wondering, what are your criteria for evidence to be convincing?

My criteria : as large the sample  (900)  as its statistics approximately coincide with the parameters of the whole population. The judgement is bias and accurate. 14 is not an enough sample`s number to stand against  900.

``Sagnac Effect has no well convenient explanation, yet.''

It certainly does: see for example:

E. J. Post, ``Sagnac Effect’’, Reviews Of Modern Physics 39, (2) 475 (1967)

for a long list of references explaining the effect, as well as a complete theory. It is an effect entirely predicted and explained by special relativity.

If you read anywhere anything stating the opposite, discard the author as being either hopelessly ill-informed, or else maliciously spreading lies about special relativity, as some people with a peculiar agenda are apt to do.

SAM: My criteria : as large the sample (900) as its statistics approximately coincide with the parameters of the whole population. The judgement is bias and accurate. 14 is not an enough sample`s number to stand against 900.

If I ask 914 people "What was the result of last night's football match?" and 900 say "I don't know, I didn't watch the game." while 14 all say "Feyenoord beat United 1-0.", which group would you believe?

There is no comparison between 900 observations from which no answer is obtained versus 14 which say time dilation has been measured and matches the redshift.

George Dishman

Not  logical.

F. Leyvraz,

YOU SAID "for a long list of references explaining the effect, as well as a complete theory. It is an effect entirely predicted and explained by special relativity."

NO that is not true!! SRT can't explain the Sagnac effect. Calculating the ensuing travel times of light round the interferometer we find that the LT – due to its linear term x v/c2 – does not predict any Sagnac Effect, but results in c = const also in a rotating system as it does in an inertial system. This explains then why Ashby, e.g., uses the Newtonian or Galilean time transformation t’ = t rather than t’ = γ (t - x v/c2

) when he calculates the Sagnac Effect in the GPS-System. This was also observed by Carroll Alley in a comment at the end of an engineering presentation on GPS and Relativity. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.4075v1.pdf

--- Neil Ashby: Relativity in the Global Positioning System. In: Living Rev.Relativity

6 (2003) 1. Sect. 2, eq. (3) (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1).

---- Henry F. Fliegel, Raymond S. DiEsposti: GPS and Relativity: An Engineering

Overview. In: 28th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval

(PTTI) Applications and Planning Meeting, VA, 3-5 Dec 1996, pp. 189-199

(http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028 16.pdf).

Also in this paper http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1499-26-yang-ho-choi-on-constancy-of-the-speed-of-light-in-the-global-positioning-system.html

The Sagnac effect on a rotating plate, the speed of light is also shown to be anisotropic.

That is why Relativity theory of Einstein can't explain also the CMB anisotropy. 

Also 

 FWLR metric describes a homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe, thus according to that Are all frames of reference truly equivalent?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_all_frames_of_reference_truly_equivalent

 Can you answer this question????

All the problems of physics are related to each others, and all of them because of the wrong theory of relativity of Einstein. Relativists like to separate between problems of physics in order to none understands anything. So do not separate between the problems of physics.

SAM: My criteria : as large the sample (900) as its statistics approximately coincide with the parameters of the whole population. The judgement is bias and accurate. 14 is not an enough sample`s number to stand against 900.

GD: If I ask 914 people "What was the result of last night's football match?" and 900 say "I don't know, I didn't watch the game." while 14 all say "Feyenoord beat United 1-0.", which group would you believe?

SAM: Not  logical.

Hawkins work was unable to measure redshift (through no fault of his, but he should not have then claimed there was no redshift, he placed too much trust in his technique). My analogy is logical, it demonstrates the situation accurately, and it has shown you why all other scientists now ignore Hawkins' old and outdated papers for the same reason.

ًWell, Many scientists when conflict with intractable problem contradicts their ancient  paradigm, they  turn a blind eye to it and bury their heads like an ostrich inside the sands. Although the mainstream  failed to resolve the new mysteries, they had struggled against any new creative ideas. 

The point is that there is no conflict and no mystery to solve.

Hawkins underestimated the duration of data needed. His method will work given a few more decades of observation but doesn't yet. The lowest frequency that can be resolved by a Fourier Transform is the inverse of the sample duration.

SAM, you clearly don't know many scientists! Turn a blind eye to a possible rich vein of papers and measurements???

Anyway the Lyman alpha forest of hydrogen absorption lines seen in their spectra from intermediate galaxies and gas lumps up to the quasar redshift more or less proves their redshift is due to their cosmological distance.

Robert,

Well, if we agree that the high redshift of a Quasar indicates its far distant. Can you tell me precisely, logically and convincingly why  we ignore  the other part of Hubble`s law that the brightness of the Quasar indicates its nearby ? How can you solve the paradox, that the Quasar is both nearby and far distant simultaneously ?.

SAM: why we ignore the other part of Hubble`s law that the brightness of the Quasar indicates its nearby ?

Hubble's Law doesn't apply to quasars because they are not "standard candles". Like all accreting compact objects, their intrinsic luminosity varies greatly with accretion activity (think cataclysmic variables), and their apparent luminosity varies greatly with viewing geometry (think x-ray binaries, or Seyfert galaxies). Remember that discussion we had earlier about how quasars eventually 'switched off' completely in most galaxies? How could you apply Hubble's Law to the brightness of two quasars, both of which are at the same huge redshift, but one of which has drastically decreased in luminosity due to a falloff in its activity?

Hubble based his law on plotting the properties of similar type galaxies. Type Sb spirals, for example, occupy a fairly tight range of masses, luminosities, and most usefully for Hubble, physical diameters. This makes them tolerably good  "standard rulers".

SAM: How can you solve the paradox, that the Quasar is both nearby and far distant simultaneously ?.

Hopefully you'll agree that I've just done that: there is no paradox, because its brightness does not correlate with its distance; it simply is not nearby.

Using the brightness as a distance indicator as with standard candles means you know the absolute luminosity of that object such as with stars of a known type or type 1a supernovas.

You're not going to tell me supernovae are closer than the galaxies they are seen to go off in because they can outshine it. The brightness law has to be applied to different classes of objects which have different processes powering them.

Stars emit by thermal radiation driven by a nuclear burning core. Supernovae from a plasma fireball heated by energy from the stellar core collapse and later radioactive decay of the radio-isotopes  produced. And most extreme with Quasars powered by stellar mass quantities of matter being heated in an accretion disk as they fall into a million+ solar mass black hole.

What is the problem with accepting Quasar have extremely bright intrinsic luminosity? We know the mechanism and the energy produced. We can confirm the conditions and physics going on from the broad and narrow lines in the spectra.

Yes Ray makes a very good point that quasar evolve with time and tend to fizzle out as the black hole runs out of material to eat. Also quasars are not good standard candles because they are very anisotropic, with a very broad fat  opaque torus of gas and dust feeding the accretion disk which blocks light in some directions. Then there's relativistic beams of electrons, which we think the very brightest radio quasars (Blazars) are because we are looking straight down the jet.

Ray : "Hubble's Law doesn't apply to quasars"

OK, logically speaking : (the high the redshift a Quasar is, the far distant away ) is a part of Hubble`s law,. Why did you accept this?!

Brightness is ambiguous if you don't know the intrinsic brightness, but the redshift of a spectral line is absolutely definite (assuming you've identified the right line).

SAM: Can you tell me precisely, logically and convincingly why we ignore the other part of Hubble`s law that the brightness of the Quasar indicates its nearby ?

Hubble's Law says nothing about brightness, it says that the rate of recession is proportional to distance and applies to proper distance, not observed distance. It applies fully to quasars.

RB: Hubble's Law doesn't apply to quasars because they are not "standard candles".

Hubble's Law applies to rate of recession which creates redshift, it says nothing about brightness and does not make use of standard candles.

SAM: How can you solve the paradox, that the Quasar is both nearby and far distant simultaneously ?.

It isn't nearby, it is vary far away and very bright as we see it. The linked image is nearby galaxy M87 and the jet it emits. If you were close to a quasar, it would look like that but what makes it appear so bright is that we happen to lie exactly in the line of the beam.

The conversion of matter to energy as it falls into the accretion disc of a black hole is more than 50 times more efficient than the burning of hydrogen in a star and stars falling in are absorbed in years rather than billions, so the energy output is enormous. If we are lucky enough to lie in the beam, we can see them at enormous distances.

GD: RB: Hubble's Law doesn't apply to quasars because they are not "standard candles".

Hubble's Law applies to rate of recession which creates redshift, it says nothing about brightness and does not make use of standard candles.

True - you correctly pull me up on that. What I was trying to convey, though, is that you cannot derive or attempt to verify Hubble's Law by using the brightnesses of quasars.  It requires knowledge of distances - at least relative ones - so either a standard candle (eg. Cepheid, Type 1a SN) or standard ruler (e.g. Sb spiral projected diameter) is needed as a calibratable proxy measure for distance. Quasar brightnesses cannot provide this. 

The flip side, and what I really wanted to get across to Salah, is that you therefore cannot plug a quasar redshift into a relationship or graph based on Hubble's Law in order to infer its brightness, nor vice-versa. It was clumsy of me to state that "Hubble's Law doesn't apply to quasars"; what I meant is that there is no redshift--brightness relationship for quasars comparable to that which Hubble's Law provides for each type of galaxy.

George, Robert and Ray:  

The paradigm ( Hubble`s law- expanding universe ) constitutes our observation. The observer is operating within a "paradigm". Observations being made are not complete in themselves; they interpreted within a theory (a paradigm). If an observed phenomena is in conflict with the paradigm, the Orthodox interpret it in such a way to be consistent with their paradigm or condemn it an anomaly. Ultimately this wouldn`t  help,  contradiction and inconsistency soon arise!

But there is no contradiction or inconsistency here. 

If there were no possible physical mechanism to provide quasars with their brightness, you would have a point, but there is. Further, other observations confirm it; Lyman alpha forest, gravitationally lensed double quasar images, the Gunn-Peterson trough ...

George Dishman,

As in this RG,

 https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Plancks_Constant_Remain_Constant_Or_Become_Variable_At_High_Energy

For Planck's constant LIGO data of merging black holes has been suggested as a way to decide if the most extreme events can change the constant into a variable. So far the LIGO results have been used in modified PV theory at high speed to accept the possibility of invariant Planck's constant, without excluding the possibility of variation under extreme conditions within the limits of Heisenberg Uncertainty.

Try to understand the statement of "within the limits of Heisenberg Uncertainty."

So my equivalence and my transformations are completely right!!!

For me constants are constants and impossible to be varied. But the problem since nature can't move according to SRT and GR which means according to observer independent, then we want to change every thing even the constants of physics in order to all move according to the observer independent in SRT and GR. That is a big cheat same as the proposed dark energy and dark matter in physics. Also same as the big bang in physics and the universe expansion. All that are not real.

From the beginning I said the uncertainty principle by the vacuum fluctuations plays the rule in micro and macro. I did my theory according to that. Because of that I could solve all the problems in physics from Higgs to Galaxies!!! None of the scientists can prove my theory is wrong. All the experiments from Higgs to Galaxies are with me. In my theory constants are constants and no way to be variables!!!!

Also look!!! 

In one paper, Marcel Urban from the University of Paris-Sud, located in Orsay, France and his colleagues identified a quantum level mechanism for interpreting vacuum as being filled with pairs of virtual particles with fluctuating energy values. As a result, the inherent characteristics of vacuum, like the speed of light, may not be a constant after all, but fluctuate. Meanwhile, in another study, Gerd Leuchs and Luis L. Sánchez-Soto, from the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Light in Erlangen, Germany, suggest that physical constants, such as the speed of light and the so-called impedance of free space, are indications of the total number

of elementary particles in nature.

Now all of that is explained in my theory, and no need to variability of constants. Virtual particles and photons, entanglements and the uncertainty principle by the vacuum fluctuations are explained. Because of that, you will not find any experiment from Higgs to galaxies in violation with my theory.  

Correlation of quasars with galaxies of lower redshifts

A long standing controversy is an alleged association of high-redshift quasars with low-redshift galaxies [32, 51–53]. Some quasars are surprisingly close, only a few arcseconds away, to the galaxies with widely different redshift. In some amazing cases filaments apparently connecting the pairs of objects with different redshifts have been observed.

Maybe one of the most impressive cases is the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 [54, 55]. Seyfert galaxies, less energetic cousins of quasars, are spiral or irregular galaxies containing an extremely bright quasar-like nucleus. The redshift of NGC 7603 is z = 0.029. There is another smaller galaxy, NGC 7603B, with z = 0.057 nearby and the two are apparently connected by a narrow luminous filament, NGC 7603B lying at the end of the filament. The redshift of the filament itself is z = 0.030 (the same as for NGC 7603 within the measurement errors which are of the order of 0.001 [54]). There are two more galaxies lying exactly on the filament: one with the redshift z = 0.243 positioned near NGC 7603B, and the another one with z = 0.391 positioned near NGC 7603 (see Fig.1) [54, 55]. Mainstream cosmologists simply ignore the evidence supporting association of objects with different redshifts considering all these cases as a just random projections of background objects like constellations. They might be right in some cases but the statistics of anomalies seems to be too high to indicate that we do not completely understand these phenomena.

Expanding space, quasars : arXiv:1409.1708

Dejan Stojkovic from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, US, and colleagues found that using the light curves to calculate the redshift of a quasar, independent from its luminosity–distance relation, would then allow quasars to be used as standard candles. Of the 56 quasars observed in the MACHO data, only 14 had enough data for the team to use. "It was very encouraging that our methods worked perfectly for all 14 quasars with sufficient information, but much more data is necessary," says Stojkovic. He also points out that it might be possible that the method may work only for one type of quasar, and that they may not be able to match light curves of all quasars.

Dejan Stojkovic`s finding is not certain as he pointed.

Robert Anthony Watson : "Brightness is ambiguous if you don't know the intrinsic brightness, but the redshift of a spectral line is absolutely definite (assuming you've identified the right line).

The Brightest source in the universe , its brightness is ambiguous? How could we convince ourselves?

The high redshifts of the quasars imply they are distant. Hence they are younger. Therefore, quasars should be deficient in metals. But observations show no metal deficiency as a function of redshift. Quasars enviroments, based on their emission lines, are generally metal rich with metallicities near or above the solar value.