I am both amazed and appalled at the cognitive dissonance demonstrated by cosmologists.
This is from a University of Oregon lecture.
The most distant quasars are approximately 13 billion light years, away. To be seen at such immense distances, quasars must be very luminous -- even more luminous than a bright galaxy. Quasars have luminosities which lie in the range L = 10 to 10,000 times the luminosity of the Milky Way galaxy, 25 billion times the luminosity of the Sun. Thus, even the dimmest of the quasars are as bright as the brightest galaxies the vicinity of the Milky Way. The luminosity of quasars can vary significantly on timescales of only a week. Thus, the bulk of the immense luminosity of a quasar must be coming from a region only one light-week (1200 A.U.) across!
Quasars have a decidedly non-thermal spectrum: they are luminous in the X-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, and radio bands. They have about the same power at all of the wavelengths down to the microwave wavelengths (shortwave radio wavelengths). The spectrum looks like the synchrotron radiation from charged particles spiralling around magnetic field lines at nearly the speed of light.
First, the lecture describes these quasars are at immense distances. They must be bright to be seen at such distances. Their observed luminosity variations implies their light source must be rather small at that distance.
Second, the lecture describes the spectrum and red shift are known to be from charged particles, not the quasar.
Third, apparently no professors or students ever question the mistaken confluence.
The lecture proceeds with the describing how the appearance of quasars with different red shifts allows a comparison of quasars at different ages.
I wonder how many years it will take for cosmologists to realize the QUASAR is not spiralling at nearly the speed of light, only particles; these are even explicitly mentioned.