Could it be another Universe?

[Meric]

<p>I have been reading these forums for about a week, and I have enjoyed them.&nbsp; I am little intimidated making my first post, too.&nbsp; I am no expert in any of the discussions, nor do I know enough normally to comment.&nbsp; I do, however, enjoy trying to understand and research what ya'll discuss.&nbsp; I find it fascinating, to say the lease. &nbsp;Ok, with that out of the way, back on topic.</p><p>&nbsp;I would like to see what people's take is on this Dark Flow.&nbsp; The article suggests that this is not necessarily a new idea, rather&nbsp;a theory that&nbsp;has now,&nbsp;possibly, been observed.&nbsp; What do you think? Could it be another larger universe? A super black hole, however highly unlikely, that we can not fathom.&nbsp; Or something else my simplistic thinking can not fathom.&nbsp; </p><p>I will not sit here and even&nbsp;make a true attempt&nbsp;at theory, since I have no real credible knowledge of how the universe works and waste your time, as you rip to shreads any theory I might suggest &nbsp; However, I am very eager to read what the experts think, ya'll being the experts. </p>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html <p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#993300"><font size="2"><font color="#000000"> </font><em><font color="#000000">Those who never make mistakes, are always led by those who do.</font></em></font></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have been reading these forums for about a week, and I have enjoyed them.&nbsp; I am little intimidated making my first post, too.&nbsp; I am no expert in any of the discussions, nor do I know enough normally to comment.&nbsp; I do, however, enjoy trying to understand and research what ya'll discuss.&nbsp; I find it fascinating, to say the lease. &nbsp;Ok, with that out of the way, back on topic.&nbsp;I would like to see what people's take is on this Dark Flow.&nbsp; The article suggests that this is not necessarily a new idea, rather&nbsp;a theory that&nbsp;has now,&nbsp;possibly, been observed.&nbsp; What do you think? Could it be another larger universe? A super black hole, however highly unlikely, that we can not fathom.&nbsp; Or something else my simplistic thinking can not fathom.&nbsp; I will not sit here and even&nbsp;make a true attempt&nbsp;at theory, since I have no real credible knowledge of how the universe works and waste your time, as you rip to shreads any theory I might suggest &nbsp; However, I am very eager to read what the experts think, ya'll being the experts. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Meric</DIV><br /><br />I just don't know what to make of it yet. Since it's new data, I think it's too early to attach oneself to a particular explanation.</p><p>For now, it's just fascinating!!</p><p>Oh, and welcome to Space.com!!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[baulten]

It says that the velocity doesn't decrease with distance.&nbsp; Now, without it saying if it is increasing, it's hard to say what's going on.&nbsp; If all the galaxies are moving at a uniform speed in a uniform motion, then it doesn't seem like a gravitational attraction, since the further away ones would be moving more quickly.

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have been reading these forums for about a week, and I have enjoyed them.&nbsp; I am little intimidated making my first post, too.&nbsp; I am no expert in any of the discussions, nor do I know enough normally to comment.&nbsp; I do, however, enjoy trying to understand and research what ya'll discuss.&nbsp; I find it fascinating, to say the lease. &nbsp;Ok, with that out of the way, back on topic.&nbsp;I would like to see what people's take is on this Dark Flow.&nbsp; The article suggests that this is not necessarily a new idea, rather&nbsp;a theory that&nbsp;has now,&nbsp;possibly, been observed.&nbsp; What do you think? Could it be another larger universe? A super black hole, however highly unlikely, that we can not fathom.&nbsp; Or something else my simplistic thinking can not fathom.&nbsp; I will not sit here and even&nbsp;make a true attempt&nbsp;at theory, since I have no real credible knowledge of how the universe works and waste your time, as you rip to shreads any theory I might suggest &nbsp; However, I am very eager to read what the experts think, ya'll being the experts. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Meric</DIV></p><p>The premise of the article seems to be that some material/formation in the non-visible universe (still part of our own physical universe, but too distant for use to observe now) is driving this process.&nbsp; I'm not really a fan of current theory, but current theories suggest that we can only see a small sliver of our own physical universe.&nbsp; This article isn't suggesting this is a different universe involved in this process, just formations/forces from non-visible parts of our own unverse. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[baulten]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The premise of the article seems to be that some material/formation in the non-visible universe (still part of our own physical universe, but too distant for use to observe now) is driving this process.&nbsp; I'm not really a fan of current theory, but current theories suggest that we can only see a small sliver of our own physical universe.&nbsp; This article isn't suggesting this is a different universe involved in this process, just formations/forces from non-visible parts of our own unverse. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />How is it a theory?&nbsp; The speed of light makes it impossible for us to see farther than light has had time to travel.&nbsp; Not theory; fact.&nbsp;

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How is it a theory?&nbsp; The speed of light makes it impossible for us to see farther than light has had time to travel.&nbsp; Not theory; fact.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by baulten</DIV></p><p>Are you under the impression that we can observe the entire physical universe from here? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>There is a distinct difference between the visible universe and the observable universe.&nbsp; This article is concerning itself with the observable universe which has a radius of ~46 Gly.&nbsp; These are some extremely interesting findings with some potentialy intriguing implications.&nbsp; The Big Bang theory and the LambdaCDM model only concern themselves with the observable universe, so I'm not quite sure yet how these findings affect them.&nbsp; It's really speculation at this point that the effects originated from outside the observable universe.&nbsp; I have no doubt that theorists are running around right now crunching numbers to make it fit.&nbsp; </p><p>It would be absolutely incredible if we could discern some effects from outside the observable universe and begin to describe what is out there.<br /> <br /> Here's the relevant papers:<br /> <br /> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3734</p><p>http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3734<br /> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3733<br /> </p><p>I haven't read them yet, but I look forward to what may come of this.&nbsp; Could be exciting!!!</p><p>Michael, as much as I might defend prevailing theories, I would love nothing more than to be alive during a paradigm shift in cosmology.&nbsp; I'm not saying this could lead to one, but it sure appears to be something of extreme interest.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

And welcome to the Forums, Meric... Excellent first post.&nbsp; I didn't even know about this until I read your post. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[baulten]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you under the impression that we can observe the entire physical universe from here? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>What?&nbsp; No, I'm sayin there is only a portion of the entire universe that we can observe due to the speed of light.</p><p>I may have misunderstood your initial post if you weren't disagreeing with this.&nbsp; It sounded to me like YOU thought that the "theories" might be wrong and we maybe able to observe the whole universe.&nbsp; If that's not what you meant, I appologize.&nbsp; I must be interpretting your post different than what you are saying. </p>

 

[job1207]

<p>Since this is an effect of gravity, the structure causing this is VERY large, and it is relatively ( and actually ) VERY far away. SO, and astoundingly, the EFFECT is seen to be CONSTANT over our visible universe.&nbsp;</p><p>That is what they are saying, to me, at least. It is quite numbing to think about it. How LARGE that must be. Comments?</p><p>AMAZING.&nbsp;</p><p>I suspect that there is more to it than that. You can speculate, but, well, then things start to really get weird. Best wait for more data. However, this article pretty clearly says this.&nbsp; </p><p>It seems to me that Hubbles revelation, one night, about 100 years ago, JUST repeated itself. The universe is actually trillions of times larger than already thought. It does NOT follow the current models, and this group is going to become very famous for figuring it out.</p><p>&nbsp;http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/dark_flow.html</p>

 

[job1207]

<font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial"><p class="MsoNormal">"The scientists deduced that whatever is driving the movements of the clusters must lie beyond the known universe.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">A theory called inflation posits that the universe we see is just a small bubble of space-time that got rapidly expanded after the Big Bang. There could be other parts of the cosmos beyond this bubble that we cannot see.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In these regions, space-time might be very different, and likely doesn't contain stars and galaxies (which only formed because of the particular density pattern of mass in our bubble). It could include giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe. These structures are what researchers suspect are tugging on the galaxy clusters, causing the dark flow."</p><p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p></font></font></font></font>

 

[robnissen]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since this is an effect of gravity, the structure causing this is VERY large, and it is relatively ( and actually ) VERY far away. SO, and astoundingly, the EFFECT is seen to be CONSTANT over our visible universe.&nbsp;That is what they are saying, to me, at least. It is quite numbing to think about it. How LARGE that must be. <br />Posted by job1207</DIV><br /><br /><font size="3">It seems unlikely that it is a gravitational force, if it was the front of the dark flow should be pulled faster than the back of the dark flow.&nbsp; I just find it stunning how little we know.&nbsp; The best estimate is that we only have some understanding about 4% of the universe, the rest is dark matter and dark energy.&nbsp; As dark energy was unknown until about 10 years ago, and is now believed to be about 75% of the known universe, I wonder if "dark flow" will some day be the largest compenent of the known universe.</font></p><p><font size="3">Whenever I hear about something like this, I always think back to circa 1900 when many physicists were complaining that there was nothing left to discover.&nbsp; Just a couple of oddball questions left like "Why does Mercury's orbit not completely conform to Newton's theory?"&nbsp; and "Why hasn't the sun burnt out because every substance known to man would have long since been used up to create the energy that the sun puts out?"</font></p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What?&nbsp; No, I'm sayin there is only a portion of the entire universe that we can observe due to the speed of light.I may have misunderstood your initial post if you weren't disagreeing with this.&nbsp; It sounded to me like YOU thought that the "theories" might be wrong and we maybe able to observe the whole universe.&nbsp; If that's not what you meant, I appologize.&nbsp; I must be interpretting your post different than what you are saying. <br /> Posted by baulten</DIV></p><p>I think the communication problem was my fault, not yours.&nbsp; I really don't need to interject my own opinions about astronomy in every post, and it can sometimes lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion.&nbsp; I wasn't trying to suggest we could observe the entire physical universe, but I can see how you might have 'interpreted' that from my response. &nbsp;&nbsp; Sorry about that.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>When I saw this my first thought was that it seems like the Great Attractor, but on a much larger scale. Until we have more data we should be cautious with our superlatives, but it does seem very interesting!</p><p>Inflationary theory has already shown how the whole universe might be <span style="font-style:italic">many magnitudes</span> larger than the our observable part of it, so that idea is no surprise. In fact, this new observation might confirm that concept. </p><p>We had assumed (based on our observations that the universe we can see is homogeneous and isotropic at the large scales), that the whole universe would be more of the same. But perhaps this is not the case, eh?</p><p>The dark flow adds a new aspect to our cosmology. It does not mean that we have to throw <span style="font-style:italic">all</span> the old cosmology out of the window, but some parts will surely be affected.</p><p>These are interesting times indeed!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[Aaupaaq]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have been reading these forums for about a week, and I have enjoyed them.&nbsp; I am little intimidated making my first post, too.&nbsp; I am no expert in any of the discussions, nor do I know enough normally to comment.&nbsp; I do, however, enjoy trying to understand and research what ya'll discuss.&nbsp; I find it fascinating, to say the lease. &nbsp;Ok, with that out of the way, back on topic.&nbsp;I would like to see what people's take is on this Dark Flow.&nbsp; The article suggests that this is not necessarily a new idea, rather&nbsp;a theory that&nbsp;has now,&nbsp;possibly, been observed.&nbsp; What do you think? Could it be another larger universe? A super black hole, however highly unlikely, that we can not fathom.&nbsp; Or something else my simplistic thinking can not fathom.&nbsp; I will not sit here and even&nbsp;make a true attempt&nbsp;at theory, since I have no real credible knowledge of how the universe works and waste your time, as you rip to shreads any theory I might suggest &nbsp; However, I am very eager to read what the experts think, ya'll being the experts. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Meric</DIV></p><p>I'll let you in on a little secret.&nbsp; The force of gravity is totally dependant on the size of the object or matter.&nbsp; No matter how strong the attraction is of this gravity, it does not decrease.&nbsp; Like planet earth, and moon.&nbsp; Have different strength.&nbsp; You have to jump on the moon if you want to walk, but on earth, you can walk without jumping.</p><p>With this in mind, the something of an anomoly that is discovered is something like a saviour in my opinion.&nbsp; The creator of the universe, going to go get His ultimate creation, life.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; because we have never discovered life anywhere else so far! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll let you in on a little secret.&nbsp; The force of gravity is totally dependant on the size of the object or matter.&nbsp; No matter how strong the attraction is of this gravity, it does not decrease.&nbsp; Like planet earth, and moon.&nbsp; Have different strength.&nbsp; You have to jump on the moon if you want to walk, but on earth, you can walk without jumping.With this in mind, the something of an anomoly that is discovered is something like a saviour in my opinion.&nbsp; The creator of the universe, going to go get His ultimate creation, life.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; because we have never discovered life anywhere else so far! <br /> Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>Yes, that's exactly whats happening... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll let you in on a little secret.&nbsp; The force of gravity is totally dependant on the size of the object or matter.&nbsp; No matter how strong the attraction is of this gravity, it does not decrease.&nbsp; Like planet earth, and moon.&nbsp; Have different strength.&nbsp; You have to jump on the moon if you want to walk, but on earth, you can walk without jumping. Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>I'm sorry but I have to ask what on Earth (or on the Moon) you are talking about? What do you mean by "No matter how strong the attraction is of this gravity, it does not decrease."?&nbsp; </p><p>The Moon has 1/6th of the gravity of the Earth. If you weren't wearing a cumbersome spacesuit that makes it much harder to walk, wearing a backpack that weighed as much as <em>another human</em> and trying to move over uneven rocky ground, it would be 6 times <strong>easier</strong> to move on the Moon as it is on Earth. You seem to be implying that gravity makes it harder to move around on the Moon, which is definitely <strong>not</strong> the case. Because there was less gravity on the Moon, they could load up the astronauts with equipment that made it hard to even shuffle along on Earth, and yet they could bound along easily on the Moon. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you? </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With this in mind, the something of an anomoly that is discovered is something like a saviour in my opinion.&nbsp; The creator of the universe, going to go get His ultimate creation, life.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; because we have never discovered life anywhere else so far! <br /> Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>You think your creator is sucking up the universe in order to get to <strong>us</strong>?!? (If you want to discuss this in depth, please make a post in The Unexplained forum)</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Here's the relevant papers: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3734 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3733 Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>The real papers are a bit more informative than the press article. The real breakthrough is the new method of measuring the flow using statistical analysis applied over many samples. Apparently this flow has been measured but not very accurately for over 30 years. Now this new method of measurement yields results that do not conform the Lambda CDM theory. So they conjecture that the motion therefore must be caused by something outside the observable universe which is the same thing as saying that the motion is caused by something outside of the theory. If their approach to the measurements proves to be reliable then we should be able to add these motions to the red shift data and come up with all kinds of new theories.<br /></p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll let you in on a little secret.&nbsp; The force of gravity is totally dependant on the size of the object or matter.&nbsp; No matter how strong the attraction is of this gravity, it does not decrease.&nbsp; Like planet earth, and moon.&nbsp; Have different strength.&nbsp; You have to jump on the moon if you want to walk, but on earth, you can walk without jumping.With this in mind, the something of an anomoly that is discovered is something like a saviour in my opinion.&nbsp; The creator of the universe, going to go get His ultimate creation, life.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; because we have never discovered life anywhere else so far! <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />Not entirely correct. The&nbsp; strength of gravity is detrmined by the mass of an object.</p><p>The strength of gravity of the SURFACE of an object is dtermined by the mass, and the distance from the center of mass, which is related to the size of the object.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[tampaDreamer]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll let you in on a little secret.&nbsp; The force of gravity is totally dependant on the size of the object or matter.&nbsp; No matter how strong the attraction is of this gravity, it does not decrease.&nbsp; Like planet earth, and moon.&nbsp; Have different strength.&nbsp; You have to jump on the moon if you want to walk, but on earth, you can walk without jumping.With this in mind, the something of an anomoly that is discovered is something like a saviour in my opinion.&nbsp; The creator of the universe, going to go get His ultimate creation, life.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; because we have never discovered life anywhere else so far! <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>The "attraction of the gravity" decreases with distance.&nbsp; That is why people are saying that the matter closer to the unknown object should be moving/accellerating faster than the matter farther from it.&nbsp; Put that in your book of secrets and smoke it.</p><p>&nbsp;Loonies aside, this discovery is so much more impactful than the other stuff we read about.&nbsp; Sadly we will probably have to wait years to get any real theories about what this could mean.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now this new method of measurement yields results that do not conform the Lambda CDM theory.&nbsp; Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>This isn't aimed particularly at you...&nbsp; I don't understand what doesn't conform.&nbsp; Can anybody help with an explanation?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This isn't aimed particularly at you...&nbsp; I don't understand what doesn't conform.&nbsp; Can anybody help with an explanation?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>I'm assuming from the article that the part that doesn't conform is the mass distribution.&nbsp; The general idea is that mass (which form into galaxies) was presumably pretty evenly distributed during the inflation stage of BB theory.&nbsp; The movement of these large regions of space would necessitate a fairly large mass concentration somewhere outside of the visible universe.&nbsp; I'm assuming it's this mass concentration and large moving areas that were not accurately "predicted" by inflation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[bobw]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm assuming from the article that the part that doesn't conform is the mass distribution.&nbsp; ... Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p>Well, yes but when the CMB was discovered it was "a uniform glow" then it had anisotropies.&nbsp; The Sloan surveys found large structure; walls, voids, galaxy clusters aligned in filaments.&nbsp; Galaxy clusters are moving to the great attractor (left of it now to a greater one). &nbsp;<br /><br />What I am trying to get a handle on is why/if this new discovery is fundamentally different from the other non-uniformities or why/if it is not just more of the same with the mega-attractor outside visible range. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm assuming from the article that the part that doesn't conform is the mass distribution.&nbsp; The general idea is that mass (which form into galaxies) was presumably pretty evenly distributed during the inflation stage of BB theory.&nbsp; The movement of these large regions of space would necessitate a fairly large mass concentration somewhere outside of the visible universe.&nbsp; I'm assuming it's this mass concentration and large moving areas that were not accurately "predicted" by inflation. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You might be right about these large moving areas not being predicted by inflation. Which arises a question that I have:</p><p>If we are seeing these "dark flows" at the edge of the observable universe (and beyond), does it possibly mean that this event was taking place during the universe's the dark age? If the flow appears to be coming out of a region of space that is beyond our observable universe, then wouldn't it be taking place at the point in time when the universe cooled enough so that light could emerge from the time known as the "dark age"?&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, yes but when the CMB was discovered it was "a uniform glow" then it had anisotropies.&nbsp; The Sloan surveys found large structure; walls, voids, galaxy clusters aligned in filaments.&nbsp; Galaxy clusters are moving to the great attractor (left of it now to a greater one). &nbsp;What I am trying to get a handle on is why/if this new discovery is fundamentally different from the other non-uniformities or why/if it is not just more of the same with the mega-attractor outside visible range. <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>I'm assuming that it's the size and scope of the non-uniformity that is "different". &nbsp; It seems to me it would take quite a bit of heavily concentrated mass beyond our visible universe to cause something like this to occur.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Obviously the phyisical universe is not homogenous, but this type of mass concentration would necessarily be rather extreme. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>