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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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