On Jan 15, 5:55*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Brad Guth:

On Monday, January 14, 2013 8:19:37 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

...

The ongoing flow of aether seems to explain a lot.

It fails the most simple tests. *It does not matter how attractive it is for philosophical reasons.

A 1.6 by 4 billion ly item is not exactly supporting
the BB theory.

I am wondering if that "size limit" should not be a function of the epoch the structure might exist in (older things look larger). *We are treating the "speed of gravity" as c, to arrive at that limit. *We are assuming this structure does not have an anomalous motion away from us, which would make it appear to be in an older Universe, and hence larger. *We assume that a structure cannot be formed of two structures, "anchored" in the middle. *Plenty of room for misunderstanding, with this one observation (in other words constraining r, not d).

Perhaps if the BB is still good to go, there should
be at least one other 1.6 by 4 billion ly item.

Count on there being such. *Only one narrow deep sky survey, and early on in the analysis. *Plenty more joy to come.

David A. Smith

Indeed, there should be a better understanding of items so large and
potentially massive enough to qualify as being a localized universe to
most everything contained within them.

If we added its terrific mass to that of our speculated mass of the
known universe, kinda eliminates any notions of the missing mass that
some of our astrophysics wizards want to attribute to dark matter and
dark energy, or even that of mpc755's aether goes further into the
cosmic toilet.