Mordred

Here is a paper which using the Ligo test results places an upper bound on massive graviton theories. "which corresponds to a graviton mass [latex]m_g\le 1.2*10^{-22}eV/c^2[/latex] at 90% confidence The paper is the pdf on this site. https://dcc.ligo.org/P1500213/public

While the arxiv you posted is entertaining. It isn't conclusive, there are tons of studies that don't agree with the paper above. However even if plausible, the paper doesn't say anything about a rotation. You have to remember the jets idea for our universe is yours. A direction of flow doesn't mean a universe rotation, so your going to need to show this. This isn't something to leap frog over. The paper you have has some of the metric tools, so should assist in modelling your idea. No model escapes the necessary math step. The other factor you will need is "Why we don't see a temperature distribution that corresponds to jets?." In the CMB or in the spectronomy surveys. Even with the dipole of evil model conjectures, that dark flow remodelled to when the Planck 2013 papers were released. He specifies using the 2013 numbers. The temperature anisotropy he finds do not correspond to a temperature distribution from jets. The variation in temperature is less than 1/1000 of a Kelvin between hot and cold regions. Jets would be hotter from a centre radiating outward. This isn't the dynamic discussed in the articles you've posted. Nor does the metric in the dark flow data suggesting jets from a BH. So it's not the metrics you will need, if your serious about pursuing your model. Your going to need to understand the math and develop the metrics for jets, as well as a universe rotation.

The axis of evil is another pop media hyped subject. Dipole anisotropy shown in the first Planck dateset was largely calibration errors. The later papers fine tuned those errors in the later Planck date set. However even with that the original Planck data still found a homogeneous and isotropic in strong agreement. Here is the 2015 datasets. The calibration corrections are in the calibration link http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications

True but the math relations to a manifold are there. Cartesian to polar coordinate change of a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. You will need a modification to the LCDM metric to correlate rotation and a preferred direction. However if you understand the FLRW metric it has the flexibility Here is one I wrote on universe geometry http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page two is the math details. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

Both articles I posted show this isn't the case. First off most datasets find an extremely strong agreement the the Universe does not have a preferred location or direction to expansion. You might want to look at the balloon analogy. I'm seeing that you may have the wrong understanding of what observational evidence shows. I suggest reading the following. Even if you don't agree with tbem, they will provide the tools ie equations. As they are training articles. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano Then you should be able to find good material to help support your case.

Just a little advise, papers posted on Arxiv are peer reviewed. Ie professional. It's also a good place to gather datasets. Though not the only one, it provides a good example of decent articles to discuss.

You keep missing the key detail. The Milky way movement is NOTHING on a universal scale. 100 Mpc is miniscule compared to 23 Gpc. Baryonic matter accounts for less than three % the energy budget mass distribution. Comparing the movement of the Universe to the minor movement of the Milky way us like saying the population of New York is statistically the population of the entire Earth per capita. Just because the Milky way is moving toward some mass DOES NOT MEAN the entire universe does Basing your assertions on this false claim (misunderstanding by ignoring size scales) will get you no where

No what your proposing is not in the evidence. I've asked you to provide a peer review showing dark flow beyond a localized influence. You have yet to do so. As I've stated the dark flow evidence is less than 200 Mpc of the Milky way. No evidence of any CMB dataset shows peculiar velocities in the CMB data beyond that range. In point of detail the longest range paper I've studied range (200 Mpc ) was further constrained by CMB data to less than 100 Mpc. Here is a further constraint paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5090 thus far you haven't shown any evidence of a flow non localized. Instead you've been repeatedly posting the same links (all pop media I count wiki as pop media as it isn't written by professional cosmologists) What your doing is ignoring observational evidence countering your argument. The Planck data study was independent of dark flow theory, and chose to conduct a study to check. It isn't a theory into itself. It is merely a dataset study looking to see if the dark flow theory has validity. The Planck data found no universal flow.

No actually it doesn't. Constraints on the birth of the universe and origin of cosmic dark flow http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01214 here is a recent CMB data analysis. "No dark flow was identified for distances greater than about 100 h −1 Mpc" Which amounts to localized anisotropy

No actually the CMB evidence provides clear evidence there is no dark flow, or jets. Any directional flow would show up easily on the CMB data as a flow of hot to colder regions. There is zero evidence of such a flow.

You haven't shown any proof of that. Just because something might be drawing the Milky way behind the great attractor. (Of course there is something behind). Does not mean the ENTIRE universe of 28 Gpc is affected. That last link also specifies hidden galaxies not a universal flow. You also didn't answer my question on the temperature aspect Seems to me your reading the parts you want to read, but ignoring the counter arguments on several of the links you provided. (Better counter argument papers do exist)

I've followed the dark flow papers for several years I have come across any peer review ie Arxiv paper that shows a universal ie not local group. Feel free to provide one outside of 100 Mpc in distance. Not that it really matters our universe is 28.3 Gpc. In diameter. Show a flow on that scale. Not within a measly 100 to 200 Mpc You won't find it from CMB data, Either way a flow from an outjet from some never discovered made up universal blackhole would have other characteristics. Thermodynamic signatures for one. This would have a center oriented hot spot due to higher energy/density from the jets. Why don't we see this

If you read the full link on the first article it gives the located distance from us. Which is the value I provided earlier. The first link explains the history of the dark flow model. However it also provides counters arguments. A detail you may have missed is the model started before locating the source of mass. As well as finding out it was 1/10 its predicted mass.

There is no dark flow on a universal scale. I've already explained that is a local supercluster flow.

The dynamics inside or near superclusters has absolutely nothing to do with dark energy.. You've also mentioned directionality. Dark energy has no direction it is a scalar not vector influence.

Right your talking dynamics within localized superclusters and localized surrounding regions. There is no such thing as a universal BH

Sure it does, local superclusters have localized influence. Dark energy is on a much grander scale. Your ignoring that the strength of gravity falls off radially. The cosmological constant is an average energy density throughout the entire universe. Localized gravity is influence that overpowers dark energy near clusters. Look at the sheer difference in size scales. Massive blackhole accretion jets are even more directional and localized. There is no way accretion jets is going to replace dark energy. Mathematically it's impossible. Completely has the wrong distribution.

No the great attractor is a mere 150 and 250 Mly from the Milky way. Roughly 47 to 49 Mpc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor cosmology looks at scales where 100 Mpc is needed to measure a homogeneous and isotropic distribution. 100 Mpc is still an extremely small slice of the observable universe. Which is 28.5 Gpc is diameter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe The Metrics in Cosmology uses scales 100 Mpc, though there is a trend to now use 150 Mpc.

Yes I read those articles. Thanks but our galaxy if it's attracted to the great attractor. Means we're in a gravitational bound system. (Localized group) The cosmological constant applies to non gravitational bound bound systems. Those style articles don't give the details such as the sheer size of our universe iteself. Dark flow is part of our local supercluster. This subject comes up quite often on arguments against the cosmological principle and homogeneous and isotropic expansion. What is often overlooked is the size scales of influence involved.

The Great attractor is a local group influence. Even though it doesn't seem that way from pop media sources. It's part of our local group. Not universe global expansion which is as Strange already described above.

Well I'm guessing this is a homework question on what will be the redshift of the arm compared to the craft. Or to each sensor position.

I believe he's defining force of gravity at a radius. The problem is he didn't know the mass doesn't change but the radius does. For example if your 1 unit of measure from the pre-existing star. The gravity is weaker than being 1 unit of measure from the BH as your closer to the center of gravity for that object. Though the previous posts already explained this aspect and the OP understands it

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf That fixes the link for some reason the copy paste screws up One of the common misunderstanding is charge on antiparticles. It doesn't strictly mean electric charge. Flavor and color are also charges Yes the description is fair Ask yourself the question "what is a particle?" A particle is an excitation of a field. If you provide enough energy the coupling constants ie weak,strong, electromagnetic become the same. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant This is all part of unification theory and symmetry breaking. Please don't tell me you have no interest in understanding how LCDM predicted BB nucleosynthesis prior to measurements but assume it's wrong. Or for that matter why the first equation I posted this thread can be used to calculate proper distance to any object? (Including distance now and distance to time of emission (distance then)) Use the cosmocalc in my signature the equation I posted is part of those values. If you compare the graph functions in the calc they are an exact match to Lineweaver and Davies. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0402278v1.pdf[/url Yet the calc uses all of 7 key equations. It can handle both the WMAP and Planch datasets

No photons and antiphotons are different. They are not the same. Chapter 3. http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Has a decent coverage of entropy in regards to thermal equilibrium

The number relates to the degrees of freedom. S=2