"... observed superclusters are an order of magnitude larger than the theoretical ones predicted by cosmological ΛCDM simulations" #28
Replies: 5 comments 5 replies
-
Following is a short post. I have shown that official distance of Virgo Cluster is wrong. https://www.quora.com/How-far-away-is-the-Virgo-Cluster/answer/Khuram-Rafique Method is very simple. I have mentioned the (i) official angle of view and (ii) official diameter of Virgo. Then readers are invited to apply Trigonometry by themselves. There are also few links to other short posts. Distances of Andromeda, and Coma Cluster are also wrong in this way. However, following is the base link. It was for the first time (2019) when I pointed out that distances of all the far off galaxies are wrong by way of huge understatements. This is link to relevant section of my book (2019): |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Above was my first post. I am Khuram Rafique. The links in above post are not working so readers can manually open in browser. I am new here and may be yet have to figure out why external links point to internal 404 page. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
All the official distances of galaxies are wrong. Redshift-distance was originally a linear relationship but later on it was contaminated by the SR based formulas that made it into non-linear relationship. How actually it is implemented is something like... Limit redshift approaching to infinity, distance approaching to 13.6 billion light years or may be 13.7 billion light years. There are learned persons at this forum who might be the authors of online Cosmology Calculators. Anyone can check from any online cosmology calculator that for any insane high value of redshift e.g. 2 million or whatever, the (light travel) distance shall remain 13.6 billion light years or so. For a simple linear relationship of redshift and distance, the (light travel) distance for a galaxy having redshift 13 corresponds to the distance of 181 billion light years. Not only redshifts, there is also independent proof that actual distances are at much higher scale than official distances. That proof is Gravitational Lensing. Yes, rather than the proof of the existence of "dark matter", Gravitational Lensing is actually a proof that official distances of galaxies are hugely understated. I have explained this thing in my second book (2019). Following is link to relevant section of book: Gravitational Lensing Section - Book: "Philosophy Unscrambles Dark Matter" |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
"Dark Matter Ring is a strong evidence in support of Dark Matter" I have debunked this claim using same argument that official distances of galaxies are hugely understated. It is further explained how exactly same quantity of matter but with greater distance solves the problem of dark matter ring without invoking or requiring anything like dark matter. Following is the relevant section of book: Dark Matter Ring and Dark Matter - Book: "Philosophy Unscrambles Dark Matter" |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
"Watersheds of the Universe: Laniakea and five newcomers in the neighborhood" A. Dupuy, H.M. Courtois, submitted to A&A (AA/2023/46802) arXiv:2305.02339 (2023-5-3)
"This article delivers the dynamical cosmography of the Local Universe within$z = 0.1$ . Laniakea, our home supercluster's size is confirmed to be $2\times 10^6$ (Mpc $h^{-1})^3$ . Five more superclusters are now dynamically revealed in the same way: Apus, Hercules, Lepus, Perseus-Pisces and Shapley. Also, the central repellers of the Bootes and Sculptor voids are found and the Dipole and Cold Spot repellers now appear as a single gigantic entity. Interestingly the observed superclusters are an order of magnitude larger than the theoretical ones predicted by cosmological ΛCDM simulations."
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions