Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet

[mpc755]

'Was the universe born spinning?'

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"

Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said."

The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

'Dark matter' is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.

'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/cosmologists-penn-weigh-cosmic-filaments-and-voids

"Dark matter ... permeate all the way to the center of the voids."

'No Empty Space in the Universe --Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space'

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html

"A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."

I use the term 'dark mass' to describe the mass which fills 'empty' space.

Dark energy is dark mass continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of the following artist's image of a galactic polar jet.

Matter is moving outward and away from us in three dimensional space.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark mass, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the dark mass.

The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the dark mass is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the dark mass is gravity.

[Rath]

Maybe the universe is basicly a galaxy inside the multiverse.

[mpc755]

Maybe the universe is basicly a galaxy inside the multiverse.

It's possible. As of now, we have no evidence of anything other than our Universal jet.

[pxi]

It's an interesting theory mpc755.

I note it seems to be somewhat old news, going on the date of the article (2011), and your comments at the bottom (#35).

Has any further supporting evidence come to light?

[mpc755]

It's an interesting theory mpc755.

I note it seems to be somewhat old news, going on the date of the article (2011), and your comments at the bottom (#35).

Has any further supporting evidence come to light?

'On the Modern Status of the Universe Rotation Problem'

http://file.scirp.org/Html/12-7501435_36098.htm

"our Universe rotate, most probably"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

"analysis by a member of the Planck collaboration, Fernando Atrio-Barandela, suggested the data were consistent with the earlier findings from WMAP."

'On the Statistical Significance of the Bulk Flow Measured by the PLANCK Satellite - Fernando Atrio-Barandela'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6614

"When either effect is taken into account, the corrected errors agree with those obtained using random distributions of clusters on Planck data, and the resulting statistical significance of the dipole measured by Planck is consistent with that of the WMAP results."

The 'dark flow' is evidence that our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of one of the following.

Edited October 13, 2015 by mpc755

[PB666]

Unfortunately i have to repeat what i have repeated over agiain, not meant to offend, but statement of fact.

The CMBR, which is the radiation indirectly left over from recombination that we can neither see nor verify, is roughly uniform and roughly of a common distance in age and distance. There have been a couple of claims of the CMBR exhibiting structurally meaningful variation, such as circulations or micro swirls, however more recent data shows that the type of data these authors used coukd also be explained by more recent interactions. In addition if there was major rotational velocity, then the frequenicies of the red shift of CNBR would differe acroos our sky just as GBH are able to shifht light into the x-ray range preferentially from one perspective versus another.

CNBR is a logical trap of sorts, if you have a theory and it cannot explain the uniformity of the Radiation, then its not a viable theory. CMBR can only really sift bad theories from possible theories, it cannot prove any theory of what happened before as true because, except for neutrinos, we cant observe any event from an earlier spacetime. Even the best we can see in differences are things that came after and essentially involve the behavior of hygrogen gas and plasma.

Also do yourself a favor and get a basic understanding of QFT.

[mpc755]

Not meant to offend but the notion of a uniform cmbr is incorrect.

'Cosmic microwave background'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#Low_multipoles_and_other_anomalies

"With the increasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian distributions. ... A number of groups have suggested that this could be the signature of new physics at the greatest observable scales"

The new physics is understanding our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

[PB666]

Not meant to offend but the notion of a uniform cmbr is incorrect.

'Cosmic microwave background'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#Low_multipoles_and_other_anomalies

"With the increasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian distributions. ... A number of groups have suggested that this could be the signature of new physics at the greatest observable scales"

The new physics is understanding our Universe is a larger version of a galactic

And all have been shown to be flawed. Again you continue to rely on flawed data to support your speculation and de-facto ridicule others when in fact it is you who are not consideing the facts. If the early universe showed significant aniisotrophy, trust me I would be at the front of the chorus, its not, nor can we see but a speckling of neutrinos that came before, it is truely a veil. Summarily, i dont trust anyone who says they _know_what happened before the CMBR, its the big red stop light on the edge of what can be seen. The fact that you claim you know undermines any credibility you might have.

Second, the patterns in that data eventually refuted was that small scales swirls resulted at the end of inflation (i actually read the whole paper), not motifs that covers our sky, which, btw is at the visible limit a tiny fraction of the universe, but motifs that were fractional and not indicative of a rotation of the universe as a whole. According to inflation theory, the process begins before and ends nearly at the time of electroweak separation, thus there is no normsl matter to turn, at best ferrmionic sea appears at the end, this is not clear due to the subsequent opaque epoch. Again it is essential to be honest about the fact when arguing otherwise its basically pulling facts out of thin air. Despite what steven hawkins might have said or the attempts of grand unification, last i checked quantum gravity, gravitational waves fron inflation have not been detected and the neutrino signal is weak and understudied. IOW pre-recombination has not been demonstared, Every thing regarding events before is just speculation.

I can tell you what has been estimated, based on expansion of spacetime. Inflation explains CMBR best and the relative distance across the visible universe, comoving at its visible boundaries to a width of 92 billion light years. This had been taken as the size, but that is no longer supported, the universe is much larger. If there is an edge, we cannot see it, and we are far from it, this is Evident in CMBR. Also evident is a process of inflation, although with dark energy now in the equation, its not clear that inflation was entirely discrete. However, it is clear that a process other than expansion is responsible for its growth, expansion without inflation leads to considerable anisotrophy. The universe as it appears is a big expanding bubble of spacetime in an unknowably larger bubble that gives very few clues to its structure beyond, that we do know.

We can argue about observed structures and what they mean in that context, but to be honest these are nothing more than just arguments. To be clear you bring nothing to the argument but old theories based on conclusions based or flawed data and you are cherry picking miss-facts and ignoring the widely accepted obsevations.

[NFUN]

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't want to offend you, but I don't think dark energy is what you think it is.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Vanamonde

[mpc755]

And all have been shown to be flawed. Again you continue to rely on flawed data to support your speculation and de-facto ridicule others when in fact it is you who are not consideing the facts. If the early universe showed significant aniisotrophy, trust me I would be at the front of the chorus, its not, nor can we see but a speckling of neutrinos that came before, it is truely a veil. Summarily, i dont trust anyone who says they _know_what happened before the CMBR, its the big red stop light on the edge of what can be seen. The fact that you claim you know undermines any credibility you might have.

Second, the patterns in that data eventually refuted was that small scales swirls resulted at the end of inflation (i actually read the whole paper), not motifs that covers our sky, which, btw is at the visible limit a tiny fraction of the universe, but motifs that were fractional and not indicative of a rotation of the universe as a whole. According to inflation theory, the process begins before and ends nearly at the time of electroweak separation, thus there is no normsl matter to turn, at best ferrmionic sea appears at the end, this is not clear due to the subsequent opaque epoch. Again it is essential to be honest about the fact when arguing otherwise its basically pulling facts out of thin air. Despite what steven hawkins might have said or the attempts of grand unification, last i checked quantum gravity, gravitational waves fron inflation have not been detected and the neutrino signal is weak and understudied. IOW pre-recombination has not been demonstared, Every thing regarding events before is just speculation.

I can tell you what has been estimated, based on expansion of spacetime. Inflation explains CMBR best and the relative distance across the visible universe, comoving at its visible boundaries to a width of 92 billion light years. This had been taken as the size, but that is no longer supported, the universe is much larger. If there is an edge, we cannot see it, and we are far from it, this is Evident in CMBR. Also evident is a process of inflation, although with dark energy now in the equation, its not clear that inflation was entirely discrete. However, it is clear that a process other than expansion is responsible for its growth, expansion without inflation leads to considerable anisotrophy. The universe as it appears is a big expanding bubble of spacetime in an unknowably larger bubble that gives very few clues to its structure beyond, that we do know.

We can argue about observed structures and what they mean in that context, but to be honest these are nothing more than just arguments. To be clear you bring nothing to the argument but old theories based on conclusions based or flawed data and you are cherry picking miss-facts and ignoring the widely accepted obsevations.

Explain how time and space are created/expand.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't want to offend you, but I don't think dark energy is what you think it is.

I must have missed where you explained what dark energy is.

Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Vanamonde

[NuclearNut]

I must have missed where you explained what dark energy is.

Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

//Dark energy is not that, dark energy is... well dark, something that we do not understand, and something that must be researched.

[mpc755]

//Dark energy is not that, dark energy is... well dark, something that we do not understand, and something that must be researched.

Don't include me in your 'we'. I understand what dark energy is.

Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

[Vanamonde]

Some posts have been edited or entirely removed from this thread. Firstly, we need to remind all sides to not throw personal attacks around simply because someone does not agree with you. Secondly, if you believe a post is a problem, hit the report button rather than replying to it yourself and cluttering the forum with personal comments which just make the situation unpleasant for everyone. Thirdly, if someone is wrong about something, that is not a matter for forum moderation to decide. Please don't try to call us in to punish someone for being wrong, because the purpose of the forum's moderation is not to decide truth, but to keep discussions polite while you folks make up your own minds about the subject at hand. In conclusion, keep the discussions about the subject and leave each other's personalities out of it.

[PB666]

Don't include me in your 'we'. I understand what dark energy is.

Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

Just in case you dont dark energy is an unknown pressure-like force that accelerates galaxies at very great distances away from each other. It may also do other things. The key to being dark and not xyz field, critically and most importantly is that it is unknown. The latest study to try to measure it produced a null result. It does not act on small scale, thus its not a form of qve, and iif its a cosmological constant, its extremely weak. IOW the conditions in which dark energy acts cannot be reproduced in any laboratory in any form and might require some much more controlled observation, such as in deep space.

[mpc755]

Just in case you dont dark energy is an unknown pressure-like force that accelerates galaxies at very great distances away from each other. It may also do other things. The key to being dark and not xyz field, critically and most importantly is that it is unknown. The latest study to try to measure it produced a null result. It does not act on small scale, thus its not a form of qve, and iif its a cosmological constant, its extremely weak. IOW the conditions in which dark energy acts cannot be reproduced in any laboratory in any form and might require some much more controlled observation, such as in deep space.

What is causing matter at great distances from us to accelerate away from us, which is called dark energy, is known.

Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

The aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet is what is causing the matter at great distances to accelerate away from each other.

The matter emitted into the Universal jet prior to us is accelerating away from us as it is constantly being pushed through, outward and away from the Universal jet emission point by the aether continuously being emitted into the Universal jet.

We are accelerating away from the matter which was emitted into the Universal jet after we were as we are constantly being pushed through, outward and away from the Universal jet emission point by the aether continuosly emitted into the jet.

From our perspective all of the matter at great distances from us is accelerating away from us.

Edited October 14, 2015 by mpc755

[PB666]

Explain how time and space are createdt.

You are asking a philosophical question not a scientific one. If you see the feynman lectures he explains how diiffern perspectives on a point are connected, some points cannot be causily connected. Spacetime is a way of representing four dimensional entity. Expansion of comoving units can occur by any numbervof forces, as long as there is no expectation of anisotrophy, its ok. Once you remove scenarios that result in large structural anisotrophies such major curvatures of space time close to the CNBR, you are left with scenarios that require 'mass'less expansions. Remembering the e =mc^2 you now have a problem the infiltration of matter generating energy feeds into a mid inflationary scenario. The problem is that no -one knows how long inflation lasted or how fast the edges of the immediate post inflationary bubble were moving. zas a consequence there is no foundation for estimating the size of the universe, other than it is much much bigger than the visible universe and it is undergoing an accelerative expansion.

If this explanation does not suit you consider this lets replace the four forces of physics with two chemicals. At the beginning I know these two are going to react but not how. I vigorously mix then in the cold until they are uniformly distributed and they gel into a ball, My next dorr neighbor is a nuclear physcist, as a joke he pulses my mixture by using an EMpulse.

The reaction begins with great heat, causing the sphere to expand, for the briefest moment i can see through my experiment, but at the moment it both hardens, an endothermic reaction, and cools, creating vacuum between the finest lattice of a-b turning the whole sphere white. My neighbor now coming to check on his prank sees a giant white ball. he has no idea how it got there. Now the particles in the ball just happen to be sentient, but have yet to realize they were created by an unfortunate series of interactions. They strive to know how they can to be

1. they look around and observe out in the distance opaqueness

2. they create ball ships that travel every direction, even one that traveled in my balls moving frame to its origin, but as they got closer, they are actuslly traveling away from the event in time.

3. now it turns out the ball had a strange property, it never stopped growing, the threads inside got longer, and as the others approach the edge it gets farther away, so that they cannot reach.

i know they are composed of a,b,and vacuum because i am familiar with the initial state and i can then measure the derived state. They can only see half the states, so they have to try to deduce states. However their ability to deduce is depending on them correctly seeing a-b derived states, we call product fields. And from the product feilds thay can hypothesize initial states.

If you fundementally don't believe all initial feilds and product feilds are known, then , as i do believe it is almost impossible to deduce the initial state. Even if you know the initial fields there could be alternative states that could result in the product. So it is a philosophical question since science likes questions that can be probed and answered.

[mpc755]

You are asking a philosophical question not a scientific one. If you see the feynman lectures he explains how diiffern perspectives on a point are connected, some points cannot be causily connected. Spacetime is a way of representing four dimensional entity. Expansion of comoving units can occur by any numbervof forces, as long as there is no expectation of anisotrophy, its ok. Once you remove scenarios that result in large structural anisotrophies such major curvatures of space time close to the CNBR, you are left with scenarios that require 'mass'less expansions. Remembering the e =mc^2 you now have a problem the infiltration of matter generating energy feeds into a mid inflationary scenario. The problem is that no -one knows how long inflation lasted or how fast the edges of the immediate post inflationary bubble were moving. zas a consequence there is no foundation for estimating the size of the universe, other than it is much much bigger than the visible universe and it is undergoing an accelerative expansion.

If this explanation does not suit you consider this lets replace the four forces of physics with two chemicals. At the beginning I know these two are going to react but not how. I vigorously mix then in the cold until they are uniformly distributed and they gel into a ball, My next dorr neighbor is a nuclear physcist, as a joke he pulses my mixture by using an EMpulse.

The reaction begins with great heat, causing the sphere to expand, for the briefest moment i can see through my experiment, but at the moment it both hardens, an endothermic reaction, and cools, creating vacuum between the finest lattice of a-b turning the whole sphere white. My neighbor now coming to check on his prank sees a giant white ball. he has no idea how it got there. Now the particles in the ball just happen to be sentient, but have yet to realize they were created by an unfortunate series of interactions. They strive to know how they can to be

1. they look around and observe out in the distance opaqueness

2. they create ball ships that travel every direction, even one that traveled in my balls moving frame to its origin, but as they got closer, they are actuslly traveling away from the event in time.

3. now it turns out the ball had a strange property, it never stopped growing, the threads inside got longer, and as the others approach the edge it gets farther away, so that they cannot reach.

i know they are composed of a,b,and vacuum because i am familiar with the initial state and i can then measure the derived state. They can only see half the states, so they have to try to deduce states. However their ability to deduce is depending on them correctly seeing a-b derived states, we call product fields. And from the product feilds thay can hypothesize initial states.

If you fundementally don't believe all initial feilds and product feilds are known, then , as i do believe it is almost impossible to deduce the initial state. Even if you know the initial fields there could be alternative states that could result in the product. So it is a philosophical question since science likes questions that can be probed and answered.

You have to accept the notion that time and space themselves can be created/expand on faith.

The fundamental proposition of the 'Big Bang' has to be accepted on faith.

We see galactic polar jets throughout the Universe.

Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of something we have physical evidence of.

[PB666]

What is causing matter at great distances from us to accelerate away from us, which is called dark energy, is known.

Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

so you contrive this and expect anyone to follow. dark energy is a token for an observation, just like the fall of an apple next to I newton, so the story goes. It is not gravity and in fact Einstein shows that the accelerating apple is due to the fact the apple was freed from a non-inertial reference frame while anewton was not.

in this example Newton calculates the force which we call gravity, is actually a psuedoforce, Newton failed to realize that he was in a non-inertial frame but the apple was not. You are doing the same thing, but not even testing as Newton did, dark energy is just a pressure, not specifically anything. There is currently no earthen measure, it exists only to explain a transition of redshifts of a particular supernova type. It could be the inflation of spacetime itself, and thus there may a highly obscure field associated with it. Secondarily, you deny the experimental results which say no,.... its a null, we cannot reject the null hypothesis and accept an understanding for which there is no statistical basis.

Blab on if you like, you can't make good theory with bad data.

[mpc755]

so you contrive this and expect anyone to follow. dark energy is a token for an observation, just like the fall of an apple next to I newton, so the story goes. It is not gravity and in fact Einstein shows that the accelerating apple is due to the fact the apple was freed from a non-inertial reference frame while anewton was not.

in this example Newton calculates the force which we call gravity, is actually a psuedoforce, Newton failed to realize that he was in a non-inertial frame but the apple was not. You are doing the same thing, but not even testing as Newton did, dark energy is just a pressure, not specifically anything. There is currently no earthen measure, it exists only to explain a transition of redshifts of a particular supernova type. It could be the inflation of spacetime itself, and thus there may a highly obscure field associated with it. Secondarily, you deny the experimental results which say no,.... its a null, we cannot reject the null hypothesis and accept an understanding for which there is no statistical basis.

Blab on if you like, you can't make good theory with bad data.

Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet whether you choose to understand it, or not.

[PB666]

You have to accept the notion that time and space themselves can be created/expand on faith.

The fundamental proposition of the 'Big Bang' has to be accepted on faith.

We see galactic polar jets throughout the Universe.

Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of something we have physical evidence of.

1. Wrong big bang does not need to be accepted on faith or not, CMBR and generally uniform termination of the opaque epoch does.

2. We see lots of empty space in the universe, much more so than jets. We see alot of isolate gas and plasma, we see alot that is the result of a process that supercedes any process that we have observed. Its observed facts lack precedences of a matrue galactic origin.

3. Two premises are flawed thus conclusions need not follow, end of discussion.

4. Quantum mechanics demostrates that the physical universe cannot always be scaled. Did i not repeat myself, read QFT and stop with the nonsesnse time wasting discussions.

[mpc755]

1. Wrong big bang does not need to be accepted on faith or not, CMBR and generally uniform termination of the opaque epoch does.

2. We see lots of empty space in the universe, much more so than jets. We see alot of isolate gas and plasma, we see alot that is the result of a process that supercedes any process that we have observed. Its observed facts lack precedences of a matrue galactic origin.

3. Two premises are flawed thus conclusions need not follow, end of discussion.

4. Quantum mechanics demostrates that the physical universe cannot always be scaled. Did i not repeat myself, read QFT and stop with the nonsesnse time wasting discussions.

The fundamental proposition of the Big Bang is not the CMBR.

The fundamental proposition of the Big Bang is the notion time and space are created/expand.

You have to accept the fundamental proposition of the Big Bang on faith.

There is evidence of galactic polar jets throughout the Universe.

Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of something we have physical evidence of.

Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

[PB666]

The fundamental proposition of the Big Bang is not the CMBR.

The fundamental proposition of the Big Bang is the notion time and space are created/expand.

You have to accept the fundamental proposition of the Big Bang on faith.

There is evidence of galactic polar jets throughout the Universe.

Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of something we have physical evidence of.

Dark energy is aether continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

1. The statement is nonsense

2. The expansion/inflation is based on the hubble 'red shift' the fundemental observation that the exitation frequency of certian atoms that are found in every star have longer wavelength, and lower frequency as the distance approximately increases. Second as distance based red shift reaches a certain esimated distance evidence of stars and all evidence galaxies decline. A small opaque phase which is proceeded by by rare stars without earlier evidence of blackholes followed by the opaque period.

3. There is nothing prior to opaque that can be proven, accepting this is not accepting the bing bang by faith. However extrapolation backwards in time base on redshifting to a state a size where quantum phyics things better than relativistic physics. Namely the density of energy in that state has no pecedence and energy density at such density requires forces to transform.

4. The connection of activities of GBH is not logically tied to events preceding the opaque phase. Data fron the ealiest stars does not indicate that black holes were common or as large as present, early blue stars blew up due to a large amount of gas required to coalesce, casing very short lived stars. Back holes that formed then are much larger today, as black holes gain energy much faster than they loose energy via hawking radiation.

5. Our universe is a unique version of a quantum singularity, not a copy of a black hole, and does not show properties of a black hole.

6. Aether is a term used by scientist a century ago to describe things they were largely ingorant of. The force you attribute has no basis in observations. Most incredulously, you presuppose the nature of dark energy without knowing the field(s) that underlie is origin, you presumb to know its origin without evidence of where it originated, and you presumb to know that which it interacts whithout any evidence of those interactions or the strength in those locations. Added together it means you are speculating based on no evidence.

The distances in which dark energy is seen acting on exceed the distance of galaxies.

Edited October 14, 2015 by PB666

[mpc755]

1. The statement is nonsense

2. The expansion/inflation is based on the hubble 'red shift' the fundemental observation that the exitation frequency of certian atoms that are found in every star have longer wavelength, and lower frequency as the distance approximately increases. Second as distance based red shift reaches a certain esimated distance evidence of stars and all evidence galaxies decline. A small opaque phase which is proceeded by by rare stars without earlier evidence of blackholes followed by the opaque period.

3. There is nothing prior to opaque that can be proven, accepting this is not accepting the bing bang by faith. However extrapolation backwards in time base on redshifting to a state a size where quantum phyics things better than relativistic physics. Namely the density of energy in that state has no pecedence and energy density at such density requires forces to transform.

4. The connection of activities of GBH is not logically tied to events preceding the opaque phase. Data fron the ealiest stars does not indicate that black holes were common or as large as present, early blue stars blew up due to a large amount of gas required to coalesce, casing very short lived stars. Back holes that formed then are much larger today, as black holes gain energy much faster than they loose energy via hawking radiation.

5. Our universe is a unique version of a quantum singularity, not a copy of a black hole, and does not show properties of a black hole.

6. Aether is a term used by scientist a century ago to describe things they were largely ingorant of. The force you attribute has no basis in observations. Most incredulously, you presuppose the nature of dark energy without knowing the field(s) that underlie is origin, you presumb to know its origin without evidence of where it originated, and you presumb to know that which it interacts whithout any evidence of those interactions or the strength in those locations. Added together it means you are speculating based on no evidence.

The distances in which dark energy is seen acting on exceed the distance of galaxies.

All of which is correctly explained by our Universe being a larger version of a galactic polar jet where aether is continually emitted into the Universal jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of one of the following.

Matter is moving outward and away from the galactic polar jet emission point.

Edited October 14, 2015 by mpc755

[PB666]

All of which is correctly explained by our Universe being a larger version of a galactic polar jet where aether is continually emitted into the Universal jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of one of the following.

http://www.outerspacecentral.com/images/centaurus_a.jpg

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2014/archives/archives_herca_radio.jpg

Matter is moving outward and away from the galactic polar jet emission point.

Would you stop flooding the group with the same images. Its a waste of bandwidth.

your images are not cosistent with universal expansions, what you are saying is simply and completely wrong.

The visible universe represents macrscopic matter in the form of large galaxies and galactic clusters moving away form each other, not matter moving away from a small set of points. Your jets reprensent gas being propelled continually by X rays with concentrations in one vicity of space. Because it is not inflation, the maximum speed gas can reach going either direction is less than c. This is not achieved since the gas interacts with other matter and slows down

The universe, the visible universe, is moving out ward, not in one place but everywhere. Again

CNBR suggests a relatively similar distance and age between ourselves and the end opaque period.

That age is 13.8 billion years. In that time period the visible edge has spread to a distance of 92 billion light years.

There is no black hole sufficiently energetic to:

1. result in that spread

2. and priduce the same result in every direction

Therefore you are ignoring the two most important observations

Any reason for CNBR has to explain the uniform distrbution close to the edge of the visible universe

AND

A process by which matter at the extreme edges exhibit predicted relative superluminal velocities from the perspectice of a interior observers.

AND

If we begin tracing time backward trajectory for all particles in the universe they roughly merge on us. We then would be but we are not a GBH. For some particles ejected from the poles of back holes, this caanot be done, many would trace origins to a stream. We do not observe this in either trends of galaxies or the CNBR.

AND

In the backward tracing as things appear to in a process of merging to a point very close to our galaxies past in space we come to a position where the stars disappear leaving a few stars made of hydrogen many of which are faint because space becomes more opaque. This occupation to follow then enters a veil of uncertainty, that if extrapoltated might end up at a single point, a singularity. But the gas in a jet does not come from a single point or a singulaty. That gas is accelerated at great distances from a black hole by xrays, and those xrays from above the event horizon of the black hole.

BUT there is no certainty of the cause, at least if we accept quantum uncertainty and that energy was more important than matter, then matter need not ever stopped at the point, it may have flowed in from all and left in all directions. Howver to get uniformity some type of coordinating process must have occurred and inflation from a singularity best explains this.

Howver since we cannot estimate the size when inflation stops or the time, ther are macroscopic (non point convergences) phenomena that can also explain; however none of thes involve polar coordination as the result is not a polar universe.

And so jets from black holes cannot be the source of the expansion.

Edited October 14, 2015 by PB666
corrected mistatement

[mpc755]

your images are not cosistent with polar jets

They are images of polar jets.

First image:

Look for 'Black Hole "Jets"" in the following:

http://www.outerspacecentral.com/black_holes_page.html

"Shown at the left is a composite image of Centaurus A (NGC 5128) made up of three individual images superimposed. The visual picture with the star background is the base, while x-ray jet streams are shown in light blue and the radio wave jet lobes are shown in orange. The lobes are filled with ejected matter a million light years from the galaxy center!"

Second image:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2014/archives/more.html

"Some galaxies have extremely bright cores, suggesting that they contain a supermassive black hole that is pulling in matter at a prodigious rate. Astronomers call these "active galaxies," and Hercules A is one of them. In visible light (colored red, green and blue, with most objects appearing white), Hercules A looks like a typical elliptical galaxy. In X-ray light, however, Chandra detects a giant cloud of multimillion-degree gas (purple). This gas has been heated by energy generated by the infall of matter into a black hole at the center of Hercules A that is over 1,000 times as massive as the one in the middle of the Milky Way. Radio data (blue) show jets of particles streaming away from the black hole. The jets span a length of almost one million light years."