when i die, im pretty sure the first thing i am going to do is fly over to the nearest quasar and just watch the most gigantic energetic explosion that absolutely can not come close to being imagined. a quasar is allegedly a galaxy that is collapsing into the blackhole at its center. and as all of the material flies into the center so quickly and with such massive force, extra particles are chucked outwards at earth telescopes.
my problem with quasars is that they are ALL more than 10 billion years old, and im pretty sure there is no such thing as a quasar that is younger than that. but think about it. a quasar happens when a galaxy falls into the black hole in the center, the black hole that exists in the center of any regular old galaxy. but no galaxy that is less than 10 billion years old (or some old age) ever falls into the black hole in the center.
it seems to me like a quasar should be the FINAL step in the life of a galaxy. like when the milky way exists for another 20 billion years, the orbits will simply decay due to the deceleration caused by the friction that the orbiting objects have with eachother. like our solar system will slow down due to being bumped around by gas clouds and stuff and so we will fall into the middle. but in order for us to fall into the middle, we need a LONG period of time to encounter all that friction. but quasars ALL happened more than 10 billion years ago, and NONE are currently happening in the past 10 billion years.
at the very least, there was something very different about the early universe. i think an easy explanation would be that the galaxies in which quasars happened were actually very tiny. that fact would easily make this thread pointless. do quasars have MUCH less mass than contemporary galaxies? if not, then there is a big problem.
this is a question that i have never heard addressed in any paperback or science channel documentary and i think its because there is no explanation that does not call into question many fundamental assumptions about the universe. (or because quasars have much less mass and are more easily collapsed in which case its obvious how they exist)
so, in case they dont have much less mass than galaxies today, i have come up with a much more interesting conclusion. i think many confusing paradoxes can be avoided if we assume that the universe is like the 3 dimensional surface of a 4 dimensional sphere. so if you go in a straight line, you will end up back at earth a few billion years later.
now imagine that it is not a smooth, symmetrical sphere but a mangled, seemingly random jumble in the 4th dimension that our 3 dimensional surface is wrapped around. imagine a flat universe wrapped around a sphere, and little dots everywhere are the stars, and if you go in a straight line you will end up back where you started.
make a sphere out of silly putty and draw a line around the circumference. then stretch out the sphere, holding on to the line. then pull out a big extension and loop it back around so that the line comes out and touches itself again. then convulse randomly, holding on to the putty and stretching it in all sorts of random directions. its easily possible that the line will reconnect with itself more than once.
so my crazy explanation for why quasars exist only in the very very distant past when it seems like they are something that should only exist in the future, or at least continuously (in which case we would see them all around us, not just at the very greatest distances) is that they are actually all the very same, one and only big bang explosion.
we are viewing many quasars from many different angles because the universe curves around itself like a 4 dimensional sphere that has been mangled by an angry epilectic. the light has travelled from that big bang through the universe many times, and it has travelled many paths to reach the earth today. we see many quasars that appear to have different ages because the outward path from that first explosion is traveling along many paths of different distances and directions.
so my questions are: what makes us think that quasars are collapsing galaxies? arent they just big spots of light for which we are desperately trying to think of an explanation? is there any reason to think that they are galaxies that have a much smaller mass than normal galaxies and are therefore more susceptible to collapse? also consider that distant red shifting is not an indicator of either velocity in the opposite direction of earth nor distance nor age.