New discoveries in the universe of universes. This is Mind Blowing.

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 month, 2 weeks ago to Science
29 comments | Share | Flag

Remember me suggesting that in Laniakea, that the universes moving apart from each other would meet at the Great Attractor...Well it seems I was on to something. Here is the link to this morns report in full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eucB2... after today look for the report for Jan 31. Here is the original laniakea video on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyy...
SOURCE URL: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-016-0036


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Snezzy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Not in my area of expertise at all, but I think I can correct some misunderstandings by referring to "velocity space" in which distances would be expressed as km/s.

    Additionally, it appears that there is a typo in the caption for Figure 1, where the term "pointing vector" almost certainly should be "Poynting vector." It's named after John Henry Poynting who derived it in 1884.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    A fascinating paper. I have a few minor quibbles with some of the terminology however. The idea that a "dipole repeller" exists suggests the presence of positive space-time curvature or negative mass. From the paper I gather that the "repeller" is a region of low mass while the attractor is a region of high mass. Both would induce negative S-T curvature or attractive gravitation however. The velocity field would reveal that matter would tend to move toward the more dense attractor and away from the low density "repeller". This could be viewed as a region of negative gravity.but that is actually a misnomer. I find the issue of inhomogeneity on a cosmological scale more interesting. It has been generally assumed that when viewed on a very large scale the cosmos is homogeneous with inhomgenieties occurring only "locally". This is important because it imposes some significant restrictions on the structure and dynamics of the primordial event known as the "Big Bang". Inhomgenieties on a cosmological scale suggest that similar "clumpiness" must have been present in the initial event.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I think the Repeller and attractor was electrically referenced...not necessarily gravitational.
      I don't know for sure so please don't throw rocks!
      Joke...laughing
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ProfChuck 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        In "standard" cosmological parlance an "attractor" is generally considered to be gravitational in nature. But the way the term is used in the paper I am not so sure. Being bipolar electrical attraction and repulsion tend to be observable only over relatively small distances because the positive and negative charges tend to cancel each other when large regions are involved. That, however, is a generalization.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
          Not bad Chuck. I am not sure all that worked on this project belong to or know of, the Electric universe theory, (which is gaining favor).
          I stated prior and so does Ben from SO, think of it as a bar magnet.
          This is new mind blowing stuff to see all this put together...so we'll have to see how it evolves...many things will change and evolve over time if science is honest and open minded.
          But not so open that their brains leak out, (Like some in congress today)...laughing
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ProfChuck 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            I am familiar with the electric universe concept and accept the idea that electromagnetic phenomena play a significant roll in the dynamics of the cosmos. Rapidly rotating relativistically dense objects such as neutron stars and black holes owe many of their properties to electromagnetic forces. Relativistic electrodynamics is a difficult field. I have studied it for over 50 years and fear my understanding isn't much better than it was half a century ago. It is generally accepted that on a cosmological scale the dominant long range force is gravitation. But these kinds of studies suggest new physics is lurking in the shadows so that could change.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
              Gravity, as I have come to understand it, is a relatively weak force...in other words weakens over distance dependent on the source, ex. the sun verses the earth. Big difference. So, like you, still struggle with all of these forces and how they effect other bodies, wonder how the heck, gravity could play a role over light years of distances...electromagnetism seems, to me at least, to be a much more powerful force.
              Just my take on a field of interest I'm still learning about.

              Thanks for your input...I knew I might learn more by posting this article here on the Gulch. The inter-lectual diversity is amazing.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I do not understand why distances are expressed in km/sec. For instance: "Our Local Group of galaxies is moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) with a velocity 1 of V CMB = 631 ± 20 km s^1 and participates in a bulk flow that extends out to distances of ~20,000 km s^1 or more... . It was suggested a decade ago that an underdensity in the northern hemisphere roughly 15,000 km s^−1 away contributes significantly to the observed flow."

    The first expression is correct: our net velocity is expressed in km/sec. But throughout the article km s^-1 appears as an expression of distance.

    Moreover, I question the basic arithmetic. If our local group is traveling at a mere 631 km/sec, in the 13.5 billion years of the Universe, we should have gone 268,332.75 trillion km, which is only 29,814 light years. But Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away. So, for all of this dipole stuff, we have hardly budged but 1.5% of the distance to our nearest neighbor. (I realize that the whole group is moving, not just the Milky Way.)

    Also, the article assumes that this cosmic background radiation is an absolute frame of reference. That violates a basic assumption, the basic assumption of the student on the train who saw Prof. Einstein and asked him, "What time does Boston arrive at this train?"

    Finally, for all the "universes" you can imagine, ultimately, there is only one universe, one reality. I understand the vernacular, but in a technical article, the technical fact is that they are ignorant of technical philosophy. The ad hominem that I have to toss out is: Isn't this stuff all government funded?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I don't even have the right to attempt an answer to your question...But...that's not going to stop me:
      I would think that the speed of these systems would depend on proximity to the "great Attractor" or the "Great Repeller"?

      Of all the groups that have contributed to this work, I would imagine that some were government funded, I also would imagine that even of these groups, it had nothing to do with their funded purpose. Seems to me to be a special effort aside from their normal responsibilities.

      Regardless of maybe a few errors in it's articulation...it is a tremendous achievement. It's a work in progress.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        You do bring up another point, one which may explain their statements of distance measured in velocity.

        Presumably, if this Attractor or Repeller acts like other forces, then it is an accelerator. In every second, our local galaxy group travels 630 km/sec faster.

        For everyday on Earth, the acceleration from gravity is 32.2 feet/sec/sec -- every second you fall, you fall 32 feet/sec faster. (Air resistance slows you down. In a vacuum, you would hit the ground like a meteor: 60 mph is 88 feet/sec; so to fall for 5 seconds is like hitting at 150 mph... ouch...)

        But then ... for the local galaxy group, after a short million years, we'd be going like 20,000 trillion km/sec. ... sort of hard to do...

        Makes me prefer a Universe designed by a Rational Deity:
        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 2 weeks ago
          In reference to the repeller...wouldn't there be a slowing to a stop before changing direction therefore accounting for the distance traveled discrepancies in the math?, not to mention the push and pulls of everything else on the way...heck, even a dense cosmic wind would effect velocity, wouldn't it?
          Seems to be really complex.

          Laughing...By all accounts, these supposed deities were not necessarily rational at all.
          I guess that's why Jaynes called these voices of the Gods delusional.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          Recall that it is 630 km/sec not 630 km/sec/sec which is an acceleration. That is the relative velocity to cosmic background radiation which is not a absolute reference frame but only a relative one. The galaxy density is not uniform so there will be more gravitational attraction toward the greater mass group's gravity. All that attraction, no repulsions other than from cosmic background radiation and other mass collisions, and the general expansion of space, is relative to other matter and none due to an absolute reference background. There may be a small acceleration in the expansion of space. The expansion of space should not be viewed as resulting from an initial explosion flinging matter apart, but as an actual expanding of space itself.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            I know the difference between velocity and acceleration. I am just trying to make sense of the original article, which expresses distance in terms of velocity.

            The "expansion of space itself" seems like a floating abstraction. "Space" is the distance between objects. We can abstract that (objectively) to the space between events: the building of the Parthenon and the invention of the microscope, just arbitrarily, are distant from each other in time and space. But neither time nor space would exist but for the prior existence of objects that act.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              Is it correct to understand distance bulk rate as the Hubble velocity of the bulk of galaxies at some distance, using that velocity instead of the actual distance, since it can be calculated from the Hubble velocity. Then as in the article, measure the relative velocity of that bulk, which has a Hubble velocity of some km/sec, to the CMB.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo