Massive radio survey reveals our universe's structure at the largest scales

[Catastrophe]

Cat, I am not ignoring you, but I really have no idea what you are asking me to do.

I did take a look at this https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Science-and-Sanity.pdf , and noted that it starts with 100 pages of introductions and prefaces and biographical information, beginning with the 5th edition and working through all editions down to the first, before I can see the actual writings. And, those seem to be very verbose and full or references to other things.

So, basically, I am not impressed. If it takes the original author 900 pages to make his points, I think he will have an extremely small audience and few if any converts to whatever his actual thought process is.

That doesn't mean that I disagree with him - it means I just don't have the time for him. And after reading the first few pages of his quarrels with spoken language and the thought processes of others, with only general solutions, I am not seeing anything that looks helpful to me. I don't disagree with the criticisms that I did read, but they were not exactly revelations to me, anyway.

So, moving on, what is it that you want me to agree with, explain better or take back, that is relevant to this particular article?

I was simply stating the effect it had on me. My personal opinion.

The latter was not available when I read the full version, but it (the original) literally changed my life in a very positive way. I no longer rely on superficial words, but try to absorb the full meaning behind them in a way which is difficult to explain. The map is not the territory. The words are not the reality.

I was not suggesting that made me superior in any way. I just stated that it helped me to try to absorb more meaning. But perhaps this was not aimed against me (#24)?

I was not suggesting that reading that material created "super beings".

I am pleased that you agree with much of what I posted, and I am not trying to extract further support from you.

So, moving on, what is it that you want me to agree with, explain better or take back, that is relevant to this particular article?

Thus - nothing at all.

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Asserting that there is some phenomenon caused by our speed through space that changes the apparent density of radio source objects is the issue.

I don't see the physics that would support that assertion. I can speculate that it has something to do with the equipment's inability to detect radio sources with slightly shifted frequencies, but that was not stated, and given the tunability of radio receivers, seems unlikely. And, looking at the graph of radio contacts in various directions seems to indicate a rather steep drop off.

At best, I think the data is incapable of supporting any density observations, so a proper statement might be that the data are insufficient to determine the density of radio sources by direction because [fill in the blank left by lack of physical explanation].

Unsupported conclusive assertions are a scientific no-no.

 

[Catastrophe]

Strange. I hardly noticed the direction of the SS indicated.

It seemed insignificant compared with the variation in the density of the sources indicated.

https://www.space.com/universe-structure-meerkat-radio-survey

The cosmological principle is a fundamental principle and assumption of cosmology stating that, on a large scale, the universe is both homogenous and isotropic. In other words, the cosmological principle posits a relatively uniform universe.

Call that uniform???

Seemingly a refutation?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Asserting that there is some phenomenon caused by our speed through space that changes the apparent density of radio source objects is the issue.

I don't see the physics that would support that assertion

How about Special Relativity reducing the space in the direction of travel by distance dilation thereby increasing the apparent density?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

First, the length dilation is an effect of motion through space, and the BBT avoids that (and other limitations of Special and General Relativity Theories) by assuming that the reason for apparent motion is not motion through space, but rather motion of space - space expanding. So, that explanation would also be inconsistent with the BBT.

Second, our motion with respect to the frame of reference indicated by the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is only about 300 km/sec (see https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.101301 ), That is only about 1% of the speed of light. So, it should only shift radio frequencies by 1%. A wavelength of 10 cm microwaves would become 10.1 cm, and a wavelength of an infrared light frequency would likewise change by only 1%. The difference between "forward" and "backward" looking antennas would be only 2%. That simply does not seem to be enough to explain the very large anisotropy in the density of the radio sources.

I am still waiting for somebody to post an explanation that shows me I am missing something. But, it needs to be accompanied by some math demonstrating the way an isotropic universe could look like that data. Just asking me to suppose something is not what is required of somebody who makes a claim based on data. Show me your work, don't ask me to the work for you.

 

[Classical Motion]

In my opinion what makes it confusing is superposition. I believe that the primary factor in what we observe/measure is our location, not our velocity. I believe that superposition is miss-understood, especially EM space superposition.

EM space superposition gives the illusion of things popping in and popping out of existence.

That’s local fast rates. Far off slow rates are even worse. A very false view of not only what was once there, but was never there.

This confusion will continue. And more theories to explain it. Math is so versatile. And with spongy space all can happen. And will.

Our velocity should only effect the color, not the number and not the distribution of sources.

Only location can effect the number or distribution of sources.

Because of superposition.

Once understood it might have advantage. A clearer view.

 

[Gibsense]

First, the length dilation is an effect of motion through space, and the BBT avoids that (and other limitations of Special and General Relativity Theories) by assuming that the reason for apparent motion is not motion through space, but rather motion of space - space expanding. So, that explanation would also be inconsistent with the BBT.

No our motion is definitely through space but I accept your point that 1% of the speed of light is hardly significant. How significant though is the finding? And if the motion where in an opposite direction would we get the same result. A lot hanging in the air I think.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I messed up on my first paragraph of my last post. I meant to be pointing out that the big redshifts are theorized in the BBT to be due to space expansion, not velocity through space. That is what does not have a dilation effect.

The smaller "peculiar velocity" through space is too small to make much difference in the frequencies. And, it doesn't change frequencies from larger distances by more than it changes frequencies at closer distances.

So, why the number of radio sources should diminish to nothing at much shorter distances when looking "backward" compared to looking "forward" can't be explained by dilation. And, unless somebody can show where the detection of different wavelengths is sensitive to a 2% shift, so that things that are there and sending us radio waves cannot be detected with the apparatus used, I don't see any way to make these results consistent with a isotropic universe.

That said, the results for the CMBR do seem to be consistent with an isotropic universe IF it is true that radiation is coming to us from 13.4 billion years ago and great distances away.

But, what if the CMBR is not what the BBT people insist that it is? What if it is much more locally produced, and not redshifted anywhere near the amount assumed?

Maybe some dark matter proponents can "find" that the CMBR is due to "dark matter decay" or something similar?

 

[Gibsense]

Unclear Engineer, Hi
Checking, it seems there are a number of ways that explain why ahead of our speed galaxies seem more 'crowded' - for you to consider:-

1. The Doppler Effect (Blue light upfront makes them look closer)
2. Expansion of Universe - Speed, however it is produced, is subject to Relativity I think

However, neither of these suggest to me that they contribute to the 'Large Scale Structure of the Universe' but consider:-

• If the universe is closed (time rotates and dilation increases) this would amplify the asymmetry. Posts such as "The Flatness problem; Solved?" and "Flatlander 3D: Hypersphere to Flat Space" discuss this.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I am not going to try to solve the problem for others. Others made a conclusive statement, but did not supply any sort of supporting logic. It is up to them to provide that supporting logic, not me to figure it out on my own time.

Frankly, I don't think they can support their conclusion statement - that their data is consistent with an isotropic universe. Maybe at best they can muddy the waters enough to show that their data is not sufficient to prove that the universe in not isotropic to the 5-sigma level of confidence. But, that is much different than what they claimed.

 

[Classical Motion]

What happens to audio Doppler shift when the emitter is going faster than sound? Multiple times the velocity of sound? How far does it shift? Does light follow that pattern?

How would you like to see something that no one has seen before? No one has heard of before.

Something new. New physics. Unknown physics. And it’s not math theory or a hollywood script.

Insert a precision rectified carrier signal into the feedpoint of an antenna. That would be feeding the antenna with a DC signal. DC emission. Non alternating emission. Non wave emission.

Seeing this will change your concept of light and the cosmos. And make you feel very small.

There are no references for new physics. Get ready for some new math.

Insert only one 180 degree input, a one shot, and get one photon from antenna.

A function generator will change your world.

Light has duty cycle, not a wave. A blink and a blank. Blink blank blink blank brink blank. The blink is constant, only the blank changes with emitter motion.

The “frequency” of light is one blink plus one blank. But only the blank shifts.

Light is much different than we think it is.