Distant quasars don't exhibit time dilation like supernovae

Oh yeah, source:

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html

>>8662164
Very interesting and surprising. Reading through the comments, none of the explanations really satisfy me. It seems like the real problem is that quasars measured at 6 billion ly and quasars measured at 10 billion ly both exhibit the exact same redshift. In our expanding universe, this doesn't make sense and the quasar 10 billion years ago would have more redshifted light. I think a good explanation for this may be that quasars further in the past (10 billion ly away) are more active, and have more material accreting into them. And because there is so much material, it slows down the speed of each individual particle (imagine draining a bathtub vs putting a single glass of water down the drain. Because the particles are moving more slowly, the time dilation effect would not be as pronounced. It just so happens that the rate of expansion of the universe exactly cancels out the "activeness" of the quasar, thus giving off no measurable difference.

>>8662163
brainlet here, what is time dilation?

>>8662163
>>8662221

I think they might have unintentionally discovered faster than light phenomenon

>>8662163
How the hell do telescopes even work?
Its pretty amazing that using stack of lenses allows us to zoom into objects billion light years away. How is this even possible?

>>8662231
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

>>8662231
its not, its all fake. space is fake

>>8662224
bubba throw rock
bubba put clock on rock and on bubba
bubba throw rock very fast
bubba go to where rock
bubba look at clock on bubba and on ground
clock different

>later
>"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES"

By Bubba Fucknugget

>>8662221
That is the first interpretation proposed on his paper. The author makes an argument against but it is the best explanation. [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824 ]

>>8662231
>lenses
telescopes use mirrors.
lenses cause chromatic and spherical aberration
also they're heavy and expensive

>>8662450
Anon, have you forgotten refractors? Those telescopes are the only telescopes to most people.

>>8662450
>There is only one kind of telescope.