Quasars or quasi-stellar radio source, from the method by which they where originally discovered : as stellar optical counterparts to small regions of strong radio emission. With increasing spatial resolution of radio telescopes the strong radio emission often seemed to come from a pair of lobes surrounding many of these faint star-like emission line objects.

     The method initial method of selection was strong radio emission, then later any object with blue or ultraviolet excess was considered a good quasar candidate. Very recent evidence from the near infrared portion of the spectrum indicates that a large fraction of quasars may in fact be brighter in the infrared than in other wavelength bands.

     Unfortunately, due to an error in spectral identification made by Maarten Schmidt (1963) these quasars were incorrectly classified as extra-galactic objects. In order to distance themselves from the term 'radio stars' they nicknamed these objects QUASARs for QUAsi StellAr Radio source (because the only 'appeared' like stars). The subsequent discovery of emission lines with little or no radio emission led to the modern term QSO (or Quasi Stellar Object), again partly because they could not bring themselves to consider them as stars within the galaxy.

     However, based on the extensive work of Y.P. Varshni it turns out quasars were stars after all; they are laser stars within the galaxy. Hence the similarities of the properties quasars such as Cygnus-A and 3C 345 with those of other objects within the galaxy like Eta Carinae, MWC 349, NGC 7027, SS433 and Young Stellar Objects (YSO). In fact their properties are so similar that two recent 'radio stars', GRS 1915-105 and GRO J1655-40 have been nicknamed 'mini-quasars' by their discoverers.

     Considering this large amount of accumulating data on lasers associated with confirmed radio stars within the galaxy, combined with the recent discovery of 'Naked quasars' only adds fuel to the fire; it is high time for the astronomical community to abandon the outdated and obsolete quasar redshift interpretation.

     A recent post from a quasar astronomer sci.astro responding in a newsgroup to concerns raised over the alarming similarities between the jets of the 'radio star' GRS 1915+105 and quasar jets: 

     Some quasars show superluminal sources, but just because an object shows superluminal motion does not make it a quasar. In fact, I think this is a cataclysmic binary, so it has an accretion disk, like we think quasars do, but it is on a much smaller scale. 

     This is a clearcut case of 'belief is stronger than reason'. He believes so strongly that quasars are are extragalactic he immediately eliminates the competition by claiming that it is ludicrous to compare quasars with other objects confirmed within the galaxy. This comparison is perfectly valid in a healthy scientific community commited to impartial examination of all the evidence, without any prior bias originating from a particular theoretical interpretation. Astrophysics will progress when astronomers not brainwashed by the redshift myth begin to open their eyes to this data.

     In other words he is claiming there are two physics involved here; (1) The physics of ordinary stars and (2) The unusual physics of quasars. This response is typical of staunch believers of a popular religion: They don't see any conflict between their religion versus the empirical sciences, they merely separate the two and all is well. As long as the analytical methods of science are not used to probe religious issues, which are matters of faith. This is a pathological form of the Selection Effect, Belief has always been stronger than reason. This division creates an unhealthy schizm between the acceptable science of objects within the galaxy and the 'amazing' extra-galactic world. Symptoms of range from the compartementalisation of the various branches of astronomy to lack of communication between galactic and extra-galactic astronomers.