What Are the Time Frame Differences Between Us and Quasars?

[mee]

If quasars are appearing to travel at almost the speed of light from us, what would the relative time frames between us be.

 

[dicerandom]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "relative time frames", but I think you're asking about time dilation?

 

[mee]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "relative time frames", but I think you're asking about time dilation?

Yes that is probably correct.

 

[mee]

Cepheid

Yes that is probably correct.

Would say a cepheid variable star in a galaxy moving at 150,000 mps away from us appear to blink slower and how would this slow blinking, if so, be related to the redshift at which it was detected?

 

[chroot]

Time would be severaly dilated in the case of a quasar moving away from us at nearly the speed of light. This means that we would observe the activity of the quasar as proceeding much more slowly than someone moving along with the quasar.

In theory, a Cepheid variable would appear to vary in brightness more slowly if it were moving away from us at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Unfortunately, the light from any single star is quite feeble, and technology only exists to detect Cepheids only in our own galaxy and, in some select examples, in nearby galaxies. Thus, all Cepheids observed to date have very small, neglibible, redshifts. The technology necessary to resolve individual stars in quasars (which are nothing more than juvenile galaxies) is very far beyond our current technology.

- Warren

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

have a look please at
Kurtiss J. Gordon
Consideration of quasar redshifts
am.j.phys. 48 514 (1980)

 

[Robine]

Or were you asking about space dilation, that is the expansion of space itself between us and very distant parts of the universe?? A rapidly moving distant point appears as chroot describes, but if the distance is so great as to involve expansion of space itself then time not only appears relative but really is.

 

[Garth]

have a look please at
Kurtiss J. Gordon
Consideration of quasar redshifts
am.j.phys. 48 514 (1980)

For a collection of moving sources with velocities randomly distributed, the classical Doppler effect predicts that half of the sources appear redshifted and half appear blueshifted. When relativistic speeds are involved, the transverse Doppler effect introduces a preponderance of redshifts over blueshifts. In this article it is shown that the size of the effect (i.e., the ratio of redshifts to blueshifts) can be calculated in a straightforward manner. For quasars, redshifts as large as 3.5, corresponding to velocities of 0.91c, have been observed. At this speed, randomly directed motions will produce almost an order of magnitude more redshifts than blueshifts. This consideration should be mentioned in discussions of whether quasars are ''local'' rather than ''cosmological''

(emphasis mine)
So where are the 10% quasars with blue shifts?

This explanation just doesn't fit - it possibly did in 1980, but I certainly would not have considered it feasible back then.

The quasar controversy arose during the 1960's when their observed evolution seemed to put another nail in the coffin of the steady state theory, together with the CMB. Explain away quasar cosmological red shift ("well at that distance they would have to be so bright") and the CMB ("the diffuse light of many galaxies in the far far distance, possibly even in another universe beyond our horizons") and you could still, just about, cling onto a non-evolving universe. However that 'flat Earth theory' eventually lost credibility.


Garth