Cosmological principle and quasar distribution

[Shenstar]

The Standard Model depends on the CP (and GR) and although the CP isn't "unfalsifiable" it's also unprovable.

The quasar issue isn't the only problem for the CP. The quadrupole and octupole modes of the WMAP that seem to orient along the ecliptic plane is a problem. The Pioneer anomaly is a problem. Inflation being in tatters doesn't help.

I know of one paper that provides data regarding concentric rings at intervals radiating out... from here, home.

A bounded, finite Universe with a gravitational center would explain a lot of things, and it doesn't require an unprovable CP. But nobody is brave enough to touch it, because of the implications.

What are the implications?

The data from wmap showing that alignment on the elliptic plane has concerned me, and I never seem to get a good explanation for it.

Could you give a brief explanation of a theory that explains it or direct me to source which can preferably put it in simpler terms.

How does a universe with a gravitational centre 'work'

 

[Chalnoth]

What are the implications?

The data from wmap showing that alignment on the elliptic plane has concerned me, and I never seem to get a good explanation for it.

Could you give a brief explanation of a theory that explains it or direct me to source which can preferably put it in simpler terms.

How does a universe with a gravitational centre 'work'

Basically, when you do the statistics right, there isn't anything there.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4758

One way to think about it is that the WMAP satellite gives constraints on around a million unique harmonic modes of the CMB. The fact that some tiny fraction of those modes seems, on the surface, a little bit weird, is completely expected.

 

[Shenstar]

Thanks, i did read that paper. And understood parts of it other parts were way over my head. I do understand that some things which we might consider unlikely are completely expected. Like the initials 'sh' Stephen Hawking showing up aligned etc.

But reading that paper the conclusion does state the alignment at the quad octopole are very tight and there may still be a theory to explain it, although it could just be coincidence that is expected.

I'm interested in knowing the gravitational centre theory that dougal is suggesting and the implications of such. Because like he said, maybe the implications whatever they are, are so outstretched people aren't willing to contemplate them. But we might just miss the obvious if just dismiss it as a coincidence or expected pattern/anomaly.

When will the Planck data be published? Perhaps that would confirm or negate this data

 

[Chalnoth]

Thanks, i did read that paper. And understood parts of it other parts were way over my head. I do understand that some things which we might consider unlikely are completely expected. Like the initials 'sh' Stephen Hawking showing up aligned etc.

But reading that paper the conclusion does state the alignment at the quad octopole are very tight and there may still be a theory to explain it, although it could just be coincidence that is expected.

I'm interested in knowing the gravitational centre theory that dougal is suggesting and the implications of such.

Since it's aligned with the scanning strategy of the telescope, a systematic error would not at all be unlikely.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Okay, so, maybe the issue you're having here...

Nope, that's not my issue at all AFAIK. I was the first to remark that in previous posts.
I asked some questions related to what had been discussed before, but nevermind, in some other universe of our multiverse surely you can see what I mean

 

[Chalnoth]

Nope, that's not my issue at all AFAIK. I was the first to remark that in previous posts.
I asked some questions related to what had been discussed before, but nevermind, in some other universe of our multiverse surely you can see what I mean

Well, I know you've said it, but it doesn't seem to me that you've understood the implications.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

How about reverting to the balloon model to illustrate this?

The balloon radius is the analogy of the global time. If things have moved around a little on the surface during history, then their path as the balloon expanded may have been a little different from a straight radius, so their proper time may vary a little, but not very much, as the ratio of sideways to radial motion is like the ratio of the speed to c, so it is really tiny.

What we see when we look at far away objects is what was happening when the balloon was smaller. Everyone sees the same thing at a given distance, but the properties at that distance reflect the state of the surface of the balloon at that past time.

The global time is not like a synchronized local SR flat space coordinate system. That would be like sticking a flat piece of card to the balloon, which obviously only works for a small area. When we want to discuss the evolution of distant objects, we don't mean in terms of a synchronized local SR coordinate system, but rather in terms of an approximate age in terms of their own proper time since the big bang.