A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Largest structure found, challenges cosmological principle



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 15th 13, 08:24 PM posted to sci.astro
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default 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  
Old January 15th 13, 10:25 PM posted to sci.astro
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default 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  
Old January 16th 13, 12:05 AM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default 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  
Old January 16th 13, 02:50 AM posted to sci.astro
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default 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  
Old January 18th 13, 05:59 AM posted to sci.astro
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default 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  
Old January 18th 13, 08:18 PM posted to sci.astro
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Largest Structure in Universe Discovered [email protected] Policy 0 January 12th 13 04:20 AM
Largest Strong Gravity Zones Found To Date nightbat[_1_] Misc 9 January 30th 12 08:21 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 06:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.