Quasars in the Standard Vibration Model

Using Wiki Definition from 04/24/2015

Quasars (/ˈkweɪzɑr/) or quasi-stellar radio sources are the most energetic and distant members of a class of objects called active galactic nuclei (AGN). Quasars are extremely luminous and were first identified as being high redshift sources of electromagnetic energy, including radio waves and visible light, that appeared to be similar to stars, rather than extended sources similar to galaxies. Their spectra contain very broad emission lines, unlike any known from stars, hence the name "quasi-stellar". Their luminosity can be 100 times greater than that of the Milky Way.^[2]While the nature of these objects was controversial until the early 1980s, there is now a scientific consensus that a quasar is a compact region in the center of a massive galaxy surrounding a central supermassive black hole.^[3] Its size is 10–10,000 times the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole. The energy emitted by a quasar derives from mass falling onto the accretion disc around the black hole.

--------------

From there we get great artist rendering of their concepts. Lovely artwork.

Credit ESO/M. Kornmesser

-------------------

In the Standard Vibration Model all Cores act the same. This is why Arp saw this shape everywhere in space. This is high energy magnetism at work in the same way at the galactic, quasars, even atoms have this same shape as described in the papers on the right of the blog. The size is not relevant. What is relevant is a very dense Baryonic object rotating at high speeds.  

The nuclear bonds of the Gluons in a Baryon will rotate at a high enough speed to expand their W+/- Boson field. The Z Boson transmits information from Photons and converts the information. This information tell the Baryon how far the nearest element was, how hot it was, and what magnetic fields the photon had to pass through to arrive at the receiving Baryon's electron.  

Coral Castle

I have lived 10 miles away from this site for 15 years and I never knew it existed. I am going to check it out.

The Coral Castle 

Pluto Has 5 Moons

Hay that is more that Earth. Should Pluto be a Planet? Based on moons???? Just Asking.

Credit Wiki

Poor Pluto, Kicked around by people who make label before all the data is in.

OOPS, Magnetism, Baby and Bath Water?

According to this article the comet landings by the Rosetta probe and the Philae lander did not find magnetism at the level expected for Electromagnetic only theories. And the QUESTION became how? "You need to defend this", a friend said. 

ESA Rosetta and Philae find Comet not Magnetized

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3038292/Comet-landers-measurements-weaken-space-magnetism-theory.html

This is true for all Electromagnetic/Plasma ONLY theories. They tend not to examine Density of the Baryon, or in the worst case the dismiss the Baryon for an existential object (Comet,Planet,Star). 

But as David LaPoint has shown the electromagnetism of high energy objects. The Rosetta probe shows low energy electromagnetic objects. That comet is not rotating fast enough.

Neptune's atmosphere is 80% hydrogen and 19% helium. Wiki
So an object of almost all hydrogen and helium in high rotation will convert to a superfluid. 

If it had been rotating fast enough, they could not land the Philae lander. So you cannot dismiss other observations based on this. You the Scientist At ROSETTA AND PHILAE must release and open data on the comet if this is to be accepted. You are attempting to dismiss magnetism with your headlines and not the data. The DATA show this object is MAGNETIC. You actually state it in the article but it is easy to miss between the flashing adds. It is just not as magnetic as you demand for a displacement of magnetism for gravity. Again BOTH SIDE of the argument are missing the actual Baryon and its properties.