|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:05:37 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in : 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 I could imagine 'debris' from one bang found in that of an other bang. I do not remember who it was, but there was this well known scientist few years ago who described a method how to find remains of other (possibly earlier?) bangs. So to say 'what we see conflicts with what we expect in THIS 'universe' or 'bang'', assumes a lot. For me, it is a bit like saying one earth is the only habitable planet. My view, if there was a bang, chances are there were or are more than that. Very few in nature is unique. OTOH 'random' fluctuations can take peculiar forms, I have read that summary (chapter 4 IIRC), and even they say it could just be a fluke. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
Dear Brad Guth:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:25:26 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote: .... 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. I would not go so far as to call such a structure a Universe unto itself. It does still radiate to *us*, and our primordial selves helped to define its spacetime. 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, Not so much to Dark Matter, which is localized, but to the inferences of how much normal matter there is represented in the CMBR. or even that of mpc755's aether goes further into the cosmic toilet. Not it won't be pulled back out, brushed off, and brandished as "new and improved" because it is cleaner. David A. Smith |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On 15/01/2013 2:24 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:05:37 -0500) it happened Yousuf Khan wrote : 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 I could imagine 'debris' from one bang found in that of an other bang. Oh well, that's not the same as my concept of ongoing "bangs". My concept would be that there are ongoing bangs creating new universes all of the time, except that they'd exist in their own space-time bubbles. No intermingling with the previous universe, after the bang. I do not remember who it was, but there was this well known scientist few years ago who described a method how to find remains of other (possibly earlier?) bangs. I think these are the people behind the Ekpyrotic Universe concept, and similar concepts, which envision a cycle of birth and death of universes. They envision maybe being able to see an echo of the previous universe based on patterns left over on the CMB in this universe. I'm now thinking that people assign too much significance to the CMBR, and see patterns where there aren't any. There was even a sci-fi program, Stargate Universe, which was based on a mission to find out what created a pattern in the CMBR. The pattern discovered by an alien race which built an empty alien starship going to explore the source of that mysterious pattern and now inhabited by a human military research team. As I said too many people seeing patterns in the sky. OTOH 'random' fluctuations can take peculiar forms, I have read that summary (chapter 4 IIRC), and even they say it could just be a fluke. The fluke covers about 0.3% of the surface area of the visible universe! Quite a significant fluke. I'd love to see if they find others of comparable or nearly comparable size (i.e. anything bigger than the Cosmological Principle's theorized size). Yousuf Khan |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle
On Jan 15, 3:05*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Brad Guth: On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:25:26 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote: ... 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. I would not go so far as to call such a structure a Universe unto itself. *It does still radiate to *us*, and our primordial selves helped to define its spacetime. It has roughly as much mass and energy as the known universe before anyone even knew of that one. It's as much a stand-a-lone universe and is our universe. 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, Not so much to Dark Matter, which is localized, but to the inferences of how much normal matter there is represented in the CMBR. or even that of mpc755's aether goes further into the cosmic toilet. Not it won't be pulled back out, brushed off, and brandished as "new and improved" because it is cleaner. David A. Smith |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 The shape of things to come: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huge-LQG The Huge-LQG with perhaps 6.1e18 Ms (1.22e49 kg) or possibly it’ll get upward revised to 1e19 Ms (2e49 kg), is yet another big old enormous item that apparently just now popped into view, as only that of a recently discovered item that’s easily every bit as massive as our previously known universe, except as having been compacted into less than 0.1% the volume, and as such is starting to make the big bang into the big dud or perhaps the Big FUD. In other words, this one could blow and/or implode at any moment, and because of the enormous redshift delay representing 8.5 billion years worth of blocking the detection of these extremely distant photons, it probably already has blown as of billions of years ago, though possibly this monstrous formation of considerable mass had only formulated as of 8.5 billion years ago. Our local Great Attractor has a very long ways to go before becoming even worth 0.1% as much mass as the Huge LQG. Gives us all the time in the world to exploit Venus. Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement software to this one small area of Venus, using your independent expertise as to enlarge or magnify the mountainous area of Venus that I’ve focused upon. Most of modern PhotoZoom and other photographic software variations accomplish this automatically, although some extra filtering and dynamic range compensations of artificially applied contrast can further improve on the end result (no direct pixel modifications necessary). “GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in question: https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth# http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”,GuthVenus |
|
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 |