# Thread: Quasar jet stream data can Black holes create space time?

1. Quasar jet streams (QJS) have been exhibiting Faster than light motion since they were first discovered by radio astronomy a long time ago. The Narrow Angle model, (NA Model) has been used to describe this motion for some time, this only works for Quasar Jet Streams (QJS) at 19 degrees line of sight. Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees line of sight, we were stumped, how can this be happening. Now we describe it using a model that some what complicated. General Theory of Relativity states that Space time was created in the creation of the universe, no more is being made apparently. But what if Black holes were creating Space time, what if a relationship between matter energy and space time exists, in a conundrum what can matter exist in, it can exist in side of it's self, how about this as a hypothesis, can black holes create space time?

I just need Quasar Jet Stream data to write a simple description of this FTL motion. Nothing in this universe, NOTHING that we describe is RIGHT, it is only right for the times we live in and the data available to us at that time. So all that we know over time WILL be replaced with greater knowledge and description's aka (Theorys).

Does any one want to work together on writing a description of Quasar Jet Stream (FTL) motion using the data available from the Very Large Array (VLA) and the VLBA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Long_Baseline_Array . I would think this FTL motion root equation could perhaps be described as V = mc^3, (V being (volume)), think about it, the universe is still expanding, where does the Space time come from???? The Space Time Fairy??? But who's to say Yay or Nay till the data is plugged into it and can it predict motion from other Quasar Jet Streams, Or NOT, if not then it doesn't work and perhaps another equation can be used but atleast the V = mc^3 can be ruled out. Remember Every description over time is replaced with another description as more data becomes available to us, so keep an open mind. The NA Model must be included in the description as well.

If you don't believe FTL motion exists as an illusion which I feel it is, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Since Nothing can go faster than light, what if the QJS are traveling in a space time Jet Stream. As energy goes into a BH space time is created. V=mc^3??? All I need is the data, if that equation doesn't work I (or you) can try another. Want to work together on it, I just need good data, but can't afford a subscription to Nature and they have the best articles, if you have data please share it.

2.

3. Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees line of sight, ...
Could you please give a reference for this?

4. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees line of sight, ...
Could you please give a reference for this?
Yup... below is from Wikipedia below I copied and pasted info from this link to make it easier for you to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Just read about M87 below.

From Wiki below ---

{Some contrary evidence

As early as 1983, at the "superluminal workshop" held at Jodrell Bank, referring to the seven then-known superluminal jets,

Schilizzi ... presented maps of arc-second resolution [showing the large-scale outer jets] ... which ... have revealed outer double structure in all but one (3C 273) of the known superluminal sources. An embarrassment is that the average projected size [on the sky] of the outer structure is no smaller than that of the normal radio-source population.[2]

In other words the jets are evidently not, on average, close to our line-of-sight. (Their apparent length would appear much shorter if they were.)

In 1993, Thomson et al. suggested that the (outer) jet of the quasar 3C 273 is nearly perpendicular to our line-of-sight. Superluminal motion of up to ~9.6c has been observed along the (inner) jet of this quasar.[3]

Superluminal motion of up to 6c has been observed in the inner parts of the jet of M87. To explain this in terms of the "narrow-angle" model, the jet must be no more than 19° from our line-of-sight.[4] But evidence suggests that the jet is in fact at about 43° to our line-of-sight.[5]

Suggestions of turbulence and/or "wide cones" in the inner parts of the jets have been put forward to try to counter such problems, and there seems to be some evidence for this.}

Thanks Dishmaster

5.

6. Originally Posted by Arch2008
Thank you Arch2008

A kind person sent me the link to the Cambridge PDF as well. The Black hole paper is amazing. I know that even a PhD would have to take their time and really "get it".

Here is a quick video I made outlining the hypothesis

I also got these excellent links on Black holes from MIT...

If your into it check it out it is really intresting.

Thank you again Arch

7. Matter does not travel faster than light so probably there is a gravitational component to the redshift, making it higher than speed can account for.

Where does space come from? If space is literally nothing, defined only by what occupies it, then there is potentially an infinite amount of it. Time is just a man-made name for change.

A black hole is just a gravity well so is not going to create anything.

8. Originally Posted by Cyberia
Matter does not travel faster than light so probably there is a gravitational component to the redshift, making it higher than speed can account for.

Where does space come from? If space is literally nothing, defined only by what occupies it, then there is potentially an infinite amount of it. Time is just a man-made name for change.

A black hole is just a gravity well so is not going to create anything.
Yea I agree Matter and Energy can not travel faster than light

Cyberia do you think if Einstein knew about Quasar Jet Streams going faster than light he would have modified General Relitivity to include this in his description of GR?

Something to ponder, we'll never know for sure, but logic would tell me he probally would have.

9. Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees line of sight, ...
Could you please give a reference for this?
Yup... below is from Wikipedia below I copied and pasted info from this link to make it easier for you to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Just read about M87 below.
Yes, I am well aware of the apparent superluminal motion.

Hmm, are you the author of that Wiki entry? One of the cited references clearly reject the large angle for the high velocity part of the jet and argue for an angle of < 19 deg and explain the results in terms of a relativistic bulk movement of the matter at the QSO nucleus. Apparently, there is no need to modify the theories of relativity.

10. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees line of sight, ...
Could you please give a reference for this?
Yup... below is from Wikipedia below I copied and pasted info from this link to make it easier for you to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Just read about M87 below.
Yes, I am well aware of the apparent superluminal motion.

Hmm, are you the author of that Wiki entry? One of the cited references clearly reject the large angle for the high velocity part of the jet and argue for an angle of < 19 deg and explain the results in terms of a relativistic bulk movement of the matter at the QSO nucleus. Apparently, there is no need to modify the theories of relativity.

I am not the author of the Wiki entry, wish I could read the cited referance you were talking about. I know your a REAL scientist and I believe you, but have you ever gone hungry? I mean really really really hungry, well I am very very hungry and unfortunatly my money goes towards food not articles, since the accident, wish I could afford the articles, Thursday I am going to see if I can social engeneer a way to get a look at the article you are refering to. I can only see a summary of the articles. This is my delima. Bummer, but I believe you, but I still have to see the full cited article you refered with my own eyes, one day I will.

Mankind's bigest problem is that it's not his problem

11. Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees line of sight, ...
Could you please give a reference for this?
Yup... below is from Wikipedia below I copied and pasted info from this link to make it easier for you to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Just read about M87 below.
Yes, I am well aware of the apparent superluminal motion.

Hmm, are you the author of that Wiki entry? One of the cited references clearly reject the large angle for the high velocity part of the jet and argue for an angle of < 19 deg and explain the results in terms of a relativistic bulk movement of the matter at the QSO nucleus. Apparently, there is no need to modify the theories of relativity.

I am not the author of the Wiki entry, wish I could read the cited referance you were talking about. I know your a REAL scientist and I believe you, but have you ever gone hungry? I mean really really really hungry, well I am very very hungry and unfortunatly my money goes towards food not articles, since the accident, wish I could afford the articles, Thursday I am going to see if I can social engeneer a way to get a look at the article you are refering to. I can only see a summary of the articles. This is my delima. Bummer, but I believe you, but I still have to see the full cited article you refered with my own eyes, one day I will.

Mankind's bigest problem is that it's not his problem
The PDF is freely accessible:

12. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees line of sight, ...
Could you please give a reference for this?
Yup... below is from Wikipedia below I copied and pasted info from this link to make it easier for you to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Just read about M87 below.
Yes, I am well aware of the apparent superluminal motion.

Hmm, are you the author of that Wiki entry? One of the cited references clearly reject the large angle for the high velocity part of the jet and argue for an angle of < 19 deg and explain the results in terms of a relativistic bulk movement of the matter at the QSO nucleus. Apparently, there is no need to modify the theories of relativity.

I am not the author of the Wiki entry, wish I could read the cited referance you were talking about. I know your a REAL scientist and I believe you, but have you ever gone hungry? I mean really really really hungry, well I am very very hungry and unfortunatly my money goes towards food not articles, since the accident, wish I could afford the articles, Thursday I am going to see if I can social engeneer a way to get a look at the article you are refering to. I can only see a summary of the articles. This is my delima. Bummer, but I believe you, but I still have to see the full cited article you refered with my own eyes, one day I will.

Mankind's bigest problem is that it's not his problem
The PDF is freely accessible:

Thanks big time Dishmaster this is excellent! It Helps alot

13. Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Cyberia do you think if Einstein knew about Quasar Jet Streams going faster than light he would have modified General Relitivity to include this in his description of GR?

We have found protons with an energy of 3x10^20 joules. That is an atomic particle with the energy of a cricket ball thrown at 60 mph. Speedwise, over one light year, it would be just 47 nanometers behind a photon. Possibly from a hypernova?

Nothing is powerful enough to accelerate anything beyond light speed.

We use redshifts to determine speed away from us. But redshifts also occur when something is leaving a gravity well, like close to a black hole. Since we have discovered jets from black holes at near light speed, it would take little more redshifting from escaping the gravity well of a black hole to make it look like a black hole jet was going faster than light, which is not possible.

14. Originally Posted by Cyberia
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Cyberia do you think if Einstein knew about Quasar Jet Streams going faster than light he would have modified General Relitivity to include this in his description of GR?

We have found protons with an energy of 3x10^20 joules. That is an atomic particle with the energy of a cricket ball thrown at 60 mph. Speedwise, over one light year, it would be just 47 nanometers behind a photon. Possibly from a hypernova?

Nothing is powerful enough to accelerate anything beyond light speed.

We use redshifts to determine speed away from us. But redshifts also occur when something is leaving a gravity well, like close to a black hole. Since we have discovered jets from black holes at near light speed, it would take little more redshifting from escaping the gravity well of a black hole to make it look like a black hole jet was going faster than light, which is not possible.
Yo Cyberila check out this PDF Dishmaster sent it's going to take me a week or more to decypher but it is the best bit of data I got so far and it is free http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1999ApJ...520..621B

I'm still working on it.

Thanks Cyberila

Kev

15. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kevinmorais
Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees line of sight, ...
Could you please give a reference for this?
Yup... below is from Wikipedia below I copied and pasted info from this link to make it easier for you to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Just read about M87 below.
Yes, I am well aware of the apparent superluminal motion.

Hmm, are you the author of that Wiki entry? One of the cited references clearly reject the large angle for the high velocity part of the jet and argue for an angle of < 19 deg and explain the results in terms of a relativistic bulk movement of the matter at the QSO nucleus. Apparently, there is no need to modify the theories of relativity.

I am not the author of the Wiki entry, wish I could read the cited referance you were talking about. I know your a REAL scientist and I believe you, but have you ever gone hungry? I mean really really really hungry, well I am very very hungry and unfortunatly my money goes towards food not articles, since the accident, wish I could afford the articles, Thursday I am going to see if I can social engeneer a way to get a look at the article you are refering to. I can only see a summary of the articles. This is my delima. Bummer, but I believe you, but I still have to see the full cited article you refered with my own eyes, one day I will.

Mankind's bigest problem is that it's not his problem
The PDF is freely accessible:

Hi Dishmaster,

Sorry to bother you I still haven't given up with this quasar jet stream model. Could you help by describing to me these other models in place other than the Narrow Angel model, to describe the motion of these quasar jet streams appearing to travel faster than light? Not the Narrow Angel model but the other 2 or 3 models they use today to describe this motion. It was originally put forth at < 19 degrees then it flipped to > 19 degrees now it is back to < 19 degrees?? is this what your talking about that the bulk jet is > 19 degrees again and we are going to use this angle?

Can you show me the formulas describing this jet stream FTL motion and help me understand fully the descriptions in place. Is it simple?

Please remember I can not read any of the cited Nature Articles.

Thanks Dishmaster

16. Kevin:

If you are near a university library, or possibly a public library, you may be able

I sometimes do literature searches at a local university (med school) library.
They have a computer terminals with electronic journal databases that are available to
the public free of charge. Nature is usually available on these databases.

I have printed a couple hundred pages in one long sitting before. I just take a break now and then to keep the printers from over heating!

If I am doing a long search, I might come back the next day to show a little discretion.

Interesting post.

Best,

Dedo

17. Originally Posted by dedo
Kevin:

If you are near a university library, or possibly a public library, you may be able

I sometimes do literature searches at a local university (med school) library.
They have a computer terminals with electronic journal databases that are available to
the public free of charge. Nature is usually available on these databases.

I have printed a couple hundred pages in one long sitting before. I just take a break now and then to keep the printers from over heating!

If I am doing a long search, I might come back the next day to show a little discretion.

Interesting post.

Best,

Dedo
Thanks dedo,

Are you able to do your university searches from Canada, I have tried but the security is stronger than fort knox...heheh serriously I will give it another try and let you know and glad you thought the post was intresting.

Peace dedo,

kevin

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement