|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-large-quasar-group_n_2455552.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429 David A. Smith |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On 12/01/2013 8:38 PM, dlzc wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-large-quasar-group_n_2455552.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429 David A. Smith Yup, according to cosmological principle, there can be no structures greater than about 1.2 billion light-years, otherwise it would violate the CMBR analysis. At its smallest direction this structure is 1.6 billion light-years across, and its largest direction it is 4 billion light-years. So even its smallest direction violates the cosmological principle. My feeling is that the CMBR is less informative about the Big Bang than people would like to believe. Yousuf Khan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Jan 2013 01:03:54 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in : On 12/01/2013 8:38 PM, dlzc wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-large-quasar-group_n_2455552.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429 David A. Smith Yup, according to cosmological principle, there can be no structures greater than about 1.2 billion light-years, otherwise it would violate the CMBR analysis. At its smallest direction this structure is 1.6 billion light-years across, and its largest direction it is 4 billion light-years. So even its smallest direction violates the cosmological principle. My feeling is that the CMBR is less informative about the Big Bang than people would like to believe. Yousuf Khan There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones, just like we have many exploding [types of] stars. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 4:51:01 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Jan 2013 01:03:54 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan wrote in : On 12/01/2013 8:38 PM, dlzc wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-large-quasar-group_n_2455552.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429 David A. Smith Yup, according to cosmological principle, there can be no structures greater than about 1.2 billion light-years, otherwise it would violate the CMBR analysis. At its smallest direction this structure is 1.6 billion light-years across, and its largest direction it is 4 billion light-years. So even its smallest direction violates the cosmological principle. My feeling is that the CMBR is less informative about the Big Bang than people would like to believe. Yousuf Khan There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones, just like we have many exploding [types of] stars. It is just as likely that there were never any bangs that created anything near as big as a galaxy, nor anything as big as every galaxy known. The big bang is a theory, just like Einsteins unexpanding universe was a theory. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On Jan 12, 5:38*pm, dlzc wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-univers...maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429 David A. Smith Who the hell really needs the Big Bang, other than Sheldon Cooper and religion? What's wrong with the Big Ongoing? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On Jan 13, 1:51*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Jan 2013 01:03:54 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan wrote in : On 12/01/2013 8:38 PM, dlzc wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-univers....maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256429 David A. Smith Yup, according to cosmological principle, there can be no structures greater than about 1.2 billion light-years, otherwise it would violate the CMBR analysis. At its smallest direction this structure is 1.6 billion light-years across, and its largest direction it is 4 billion light-years. So even its smallest direction violates the cosmological principle. My feeling is that the CMBR is less informative about the Big Bang than people would like to believe. * * * *Yousuf Khan There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones, just like we have many exploding [types of] stars. Indeed, as well as the Big Ongoing as mpc755 has to say. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
Dear Brad Guth:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 3:00:59 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote: .... Who the hell really needs the Big Bang, other than Sheldon Cooper and religion? Anyone that does not want to trigger another Inquisition? What's wrong with the Big Ongoing? Not enough iron. No way to "dissipate" entropy. David A. Smith |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On Jan 14, 4:10*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Brad Guth: On Monday, January 14, 2013 3:00:59 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote: ... Who the hell really needs the Big Bang, other than Sheldon Cooper and religion? Anyone that does not want to trigger another Inquisition? What's wrong with the Big Ongoing? Not enough iron. *No way to "dissipate" entropy. David A. Smith The ongoing flow of aether seems to explain a lot. A 1.6 by 4 billion ly item is not exactly supporting the BB theory. Perhaps if the BB is still good to go, there should be at least one other 1.6 by 4 billion ly item. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On 13/01/2013 4:51 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
There may have been multiple bangs, maybe even big and small ones, just like we have many exploding [types of] stars. I don't disagree, but what has this got to do with it? Yousuf Khan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Largest Structure in Universe Discovered | [email protected] | Policy | 0 | January 12th 13 03:20 AM |
Largest Strong Gravity Zones Found To Date | nightbat[_1_] | Misc | 9 | January 30th 12 07:21 PM |
cosmological large-scale structure on the orientation of galaxies | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 15 | May 10th 06 08:11 AM |
The Cosmological Principle | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 21 | September 26th 05 07:24 PM |
possible new structure found on Mars | brocpuffs | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | November 22nd 03 05:52 AM |