Red Shift

Do you know what the redshift of this object is? It is not given in the link you posted.

I know nothing beyond what I read in that article, but they do provide links to some other sites that may have more information. Or you could try to contact the author of the article and get info about the source material they had...

There is more of interest... In following some links, I found:

www.eso.org/outreach/info-events/ut1fl/news.html

and

www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-23-02.html

The article says the distance is at a point when the universe was 2 billion years old. I guess that is at a redshift of z=5 or so. Isn't there quasars redshifted more than z=5.5 seen? I wonder if quasers exist beyond galaxies? This is very interesting stuff thanks for posting the links.

Extract from data on Quasars

*************************************************************8
Purely as an academic exercise, we calculate the transverse velocities required for the three quasars PHL 1033, LB 8956 and LB 8991 on the cosmological red shift hypothesis. We take the smallest value of proper motion within the uncertainty range and assume the Hubble Constant to be 50 km/s/Mpc and q0=0. Then we find that in terms of the velocity of light c, Vt = 760c, 5200c and 2300c for PHL 1033, LB 8956 and LB 8991 respectively. Needless to say these values are without physical significance and clearly indicate that the cosmological red shift hypothesis is completely untenable (Varshni, 1974, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1976 and 1977).

******************************************


They see observations of horizontal motion far in excess of v = c yet they want to scrap red shift instead of conclude Relativity is bunk.

What is MM position on this?


Mac

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Extract from data on Quasars

*************************************************************8
Purely as an academic exercise, we calculate the transverse velocities required for the three quasars PHL 1033, LB 8956 and LB 8991 <b>on the cosmological red shift hypothesis</b>. We take the smallest value of proper motion within the uncertainty range and assume the Hubble Constant to be 50 km/s/Mpc and q0=0. Then we find that in terms of the velocity of light c, Vt = 760c, 5200c and 2300c for PHL 1033, LB 8956 and LB 8991 respectively. Needless to say these values are without physical significance and <b>clearly indicate that the cosmological red shift hypothesis is completely untenable</b> (Varshni, 1974, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1976 and 1977).

******************************************


They see observations of horizontal motion far in excess of v = c yet they want to scrap red shift instead of conclude Relativity is bunk.

What is MM position on this?


Mac
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I did not understand the test... seems that they used an assumption (cosm. redshift), found what they call that "has no physical meaning", and concluded that that assumption was correct?? I'm lost.