In the Face Book group:
Someone posted an article describing a picture taken by Hubble.
I find the official story in this article frustrating. I will begin with Halton Arp's observation of high red shift objects can be in front of or adjacent to low red shift objects. Therefore the assumption that any red shift is always proportional to distance cannot be true.
Arp also noted that sometimes quasars can be found in pairs with the same high red shift.
TheHubble image for J0439+1634 can be found at sciencedaily.com.
I cannot find the name of the 'foreground' galaxy.
What is observed is a faint galaxy to the left of images of 3 quasars with the same large red shift; the 3 are not symmetrical with two as a close pair but the third at a distance; the pair is roughly aligned with the foreground galaxy. The claim is the single quasar has had its light altered , by the process of a gravitational lens, via this faint closer galaxy.
I see two interpretations of the picture: 1) things are as they are seen. There are 3 asymmetrical quasars (with high red shift) next to this lower red shift galaxy.This means the 4 images are 4 separate objects; no lensing. The quasars are apparently energetic and are very bright. The large red shifts do not mean the 3 quasars are at the 'beginning of time.'
2) the astronomers obviously disagree with this simple interpretation of the picture according to this news story. They propose this single quasar has a SMBH and is very very far away; this SMBH is generating all this enormous energy while a faint galaxy in the nearer foreground is splitting the light from a single distant quasar into 3 asymmetrical images while also magnifying the brightness of each image to that of 300 trillion suns. Maybe I missed it but the faint galaxy was not given a SMBH.
Even though the theory for a black hole is a one body universe with all the mass in the singularity this special SMB in the quasar is endowed with an accretion disk, or external matter.
I expect criticism for questioning the official story but is it possible in this case 'believing is seeing' where we will see what we believe we should see? Is anyone else skeptical after seeing the actual hubble picture?
Hit back to go to previous page in history.
Select Cosmology to see other posts and comments to that group.