Friday, April 16, 2010

Dark Keeps Flowing

Back in October 2006, this blog predicted that Super-Ultramasive Black Holes lie undetected in Space, Stirring Things Up.

"Expansion of the Universe is not uniform. Individual motions of galaxies can oppose the Hubble flow, like trout swimming upstream. The Milky Way and thousands of other galaxies are falling at 600 km/sec toward an unseen mass called the Great Attractor. This object has the mass of 10^16 Suns or 100,000 galaxies! It may be a true Black Hole, so monstrously massive that nothing can escape. There is evidence of another Great Attractor some 700 million years away.

"These monsters could be common, yet they are not counted in mass surveys. The missing 2/3 ascribed to "dark energy" may be hidden from us. It is foolish to think that humans know all that is out there. That is like Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius not realising that he is falling into an abyss.

In September 2008 a paper by Alexander Kashlinsky of Goddard Space Flight Center reported a mysterious Dark Flow, drawing galaxies toward it. Huge clusters were reported moving at 600 km/sec in direction of the constellations Centaurus and Vela. Kashlinsky's results remain controversial; physicists Ned Wright claimed to find flaws in their analysis.

A month later another research group led by Mike Hudson from University of Waterloo reported that our region of the Universe is not expanding uniformly. One half of the sky appears to be expanding faster than the other half. Hudson's group concluded that massive, unseen structures exist in the Universe. These great attractors would not lie outside the Universe, but beyond our local group of galaxies. The tired old cosmological model can not account for such huge structures. Consistently Large Flows on Scales of 100 Mpc/h: A Challenge for the Standard LCDM Cosmology.

Last month Kashlinsky and colleagues published data indicating that the Dark Flow extends even further into Space. The new paper makes a strong claim that Dark Flow is real. Already it has led to speculation that the source of attraction is outside our Universe! Dark Flow can easily be explained by considering light.

Because the early speed of light was much larger, primordial Black Holes formed to immense size. These ultra-massive Holes cleared immense dark voids in Space. Today they would invisibly attract galaxies toward them, exactly as has been observed. Models can precisely predict the 71.62% proportion of this dark mass, precisely the amount found by WMAP. Though the dead old "LCDM" model can notaccount for Dark Flow, it can be explained in a Universe with a changing speed of light.



Blogger nige said...

"The Milky Way and thousands of other galaxies are falling at 600 km/sec toward an unseen mass called the Great Attractor."

Hi Louise, yes we're going at 600 km/s towards Andromeda, but why speculate about unseen mass causing attraction? Why not 600 km/s as a residual motion of the Milky Way, as suggested by the title of the article in Scientific American (vol. 238, May 1978, pp. 64-74; PDF linked here) about the discovery of the evidence for the discovery of that 600 km/s motion by Prof. Richard A. Muller?Forget general relativity, which is just a classical approximation which has various implicit assumptions that aren't consistent with quantum gravity.

That 600 km/s motion observed in the cosine of the anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation can ironically be viewed simply as the cause of the overall near isotropy of the universe in Muller's model, because it suggests at least an order-of-magnitude estimate for the motion of the Milky Way relative to the cosmic background radiation over the past 13.7 x 10^9 years, suggesting a motion of vt = (600 km/s)*(age of universe) = 0.2% of the horizon radius of the universe. The Milky Way velocity will have varied during the age of the universe, because of local gravitational deflections, accelerations and decelerations when approaching and passing other galaxies around, but on average over long periods these random variations will tend to cancel out. In any case, the 600 km/s figure is a good order of magnitude estimate for the average velocity of the Milky Way. This violates the Copernican doctrine that we're not at a special place; if as Muller's "new ae***r drift" suggests, we are at just 0.2% of the horizon radius, then we are in special place, relatively near the centre!

Hence, being near the centre, we see near isotropy of the surrounding universe! I.e. it looks almost the same in all directions! Thus, the anisotropy in the CBR suggests a physical mechanism for the general isotropy of the universe around us.

It's amazing how much hostility I've had in response to this, e.g. roughly a decade ago ago in Physics Forums. People there falsely claimed that the so-called "Copernican Principle" is a scientific law. No, it's just a conservative guesswork assumption made in retaliation and defense of ignorance against early pseudoscientific ideas that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

The 600 km/s motion is evidence that the Earth is in virtually just that "special position". Multiply the 600 km/s speed of our Milky Way by the age of the universe, and in the spherical geometry of Euclidean quantum gravity (where gravity and the Lorentz contraction isn't a classical general and special relativistic intrinsic contraction and curvature, respectively, but is just a force produced acceleration and longitudinal contraction due to impulses from field quanta exchange, gravitons) you find we're 0.2% of sphere's radius. Very near the middle.

It's fascinating how the Copernican principle (pure guesswork) is falsely used to defend and "protect" guesswork in classical physics like general relativity, from the simplest possible interpretations of experimental evidence. This is exactly the opposite of the ethos behind the Copernican principle. It wasn't made up to defend complex unpredictive orthodoxy from progress via simple interpretations of observational data. It was made up to defend the best model against dogma. In the hands of modern dogmatic speculators, it gets confused for an experimental fact, and is used to defend dogma, not oppose it!

7:50 AM  
Blogger nige said...

Sorry my last paragraph is about the opposition from groupthink dogma defenders at Physics Forums a decade ago, not your suggestions. I think your posts are very motivating, for thinking about physics.

Good luck with your research!

7:58 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page