Mordred

Well unfortunately you haven't got anything to work from on this conjecture. Now at least you recognize that your unfamiliar with current models and physics and ate not declaring it's this way. For that I give you credit. So let me help you better understand current cosmology. Though you will have to do the work of study lol. Here is some free textbooks to help get you started. Anytime you read a section your having difficulty understanding feel free to ask and I and others will be more than happy to help. Training (textbook Style Articles) http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau As mentioned by Migl all physics models require mathematics in order to make testable predictions. These articles will help provide those tools.

That book was also part of my studies. Anyways were getting a bit off topic lol. Needless to say a little research by the OP and tests of the speed of light in the last four centuries would readily show the OP as being incorrect. Not to mention modern tests. Lol can you imagine watching an explosion in space if frequency varied the propogation speed ? Different color frequencies for example would arrive at different times. Starting with gamma rays the x rays etc etc etc. Obviously that doesn't happen. Just goes to show how little ground the OP has to stand on. Particularly since we have watched super Nova explosions occur and all frequencies arrived at precisely the same time.

No I found a copy when I was helping my father with his business of cleaning rental homes out. It's amazing though how close the measurements in that old textbook matches those taken today though. I started studying physics in 1979. Though I was still a youth then. My first wow moment was studying Allen Guths false vacuum inflation paper and was hooked on physics ever since. Lol I still have a copy of that paper. PS it was a Canadian undergraduate physics textbook way back then (should interest you as a fellow Canuck). I even used one of its lessons to build a cooling system that requires no power. (principle of expansion on cooling)

How familiar are you with Maxwell equations in particular the directional components of the magnetic field ? Also are you familiar with the right hand rule ? You should also be able to predict which way the spinning occurs. However we will need some guidance on your math familiarity with regards to magnetism. Google Lorentz force for starters.

All completely incorrect. You do realize that different frequencies of light propogate at the same speed. We have proven this beyond doubt with spectronomy and lasers. So it makes no sense to think redshift which only alters frequency will affect the speed of light. One day you might actually learn to examine the evidence instead of your incorrect claims. Lol Even my 1921 physics textbook disagrees with you and it gives a chart of different tests at different frequencies of light.

Every physics theory has competitive theories this is true of inflation. The CMB itself is supportive evidence through big bang nucleosynthesis of the BB. One of the difficult things to explain is how the supercooling due to rapid expansion and reheating due to the inflation slow roll leads to the metalicity values measured at z=1090. When you get right down to it the percentages match those predicted by inflation and quite frankly limit the range of viable inflation models. So it really doesn't matter what one believes. The only thing that matters is what observational evidence tells us. If you want a listing of viable inflation models that match observational evidence (though the last update was 2013.) See here https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 The opening section explains the criteria. Personally I'm a fan of a single scalar field with a low kinetic term Higgs inflation. However my opinion doesn't mean it's factual. Lol at least that one is still viable according to Planck datasets.

I guess you can describe that as causal now. Lol let the metaphysics argue that expression.

In other words it is studying the local effects our motion and the local mass density has on our measurements. This is examined by the mass to luminosity relations. Ie brightness Of course not. Your lifetime is insignificant compared to cosmological time. It would be like comparing the lifetime of a flea to a rock.

The paper isn't a wide range of area study. It has only examined the nearby 313 galaxy clusters out of billions of galaxies. It cannot state anything beyond its examination range which I have given. It also explains dipole anistropy in its opening paragraphs.

Correct the range in this paper is 3.026 Gly or if you prefer 926 Mpc. Assuming my calculations is correct. This gives a range to z=0.3 in cosmological redshift value. The universe has a radius of roughly 46.5 Billion light years. 46.5 Gly. Z= 1096 roughly We are examining only a miniscule portion of the observable universe. 3.026 Gly out of 46.5 Gly. Local group only... And only a small sample of the observable universe.

Let's simplify then start with the detail telescopes no matter how advanced can only detect and measure out to a certain range. With advanced telescopes that range depends on what frequencies of light they are sensitive enough to receive. "Chandra is sensitive to X-ray sources 100 times fainter than any previous X-ray telescope, enabled by the high angular resolution of its mirrors. Since the Earth's atmosphere absorbs the vast majority of X-rays, they are not detectable from Earth-based telescopes; " The Chandra telescope is designed to detect wavelengths between 0.12 and 12 nm. As per the link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_X-ray_Observatory this limits its range of detectability. Do you understand this thus far ? the next step is to look specifically at the range of examination in the paper itself... all galaxy clusters examined in the paper 313. Fall within a range of z=0.3 with the exception of two clusters. This is strictly a local group cluster...

To understand the term brightness one has to start with the mass to luminosity ratio. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–luminosity_relation This is a particular topic that is extremely difficult to present. However in essence it means that the matter ratio from one hemisphere locally appear different from another local hemisphere (I stress local region as this is where the difference is examined) it does not apply to far field measurements as Chandra does not have that capability.

The problem with your understanding is paying too much attention to pop media coverage or the verbal word aspects in descriptives. Let's take universe age for example I showed an inverse relationship between Hubble constant to age of universe. [math] t=\frac{1}{H}[/math] now let's assume a start point of H=73/km/sec/Mpc. Then let's assume an extreme (believe me this is an extreme easily discovered and highly unlikely) of 10 percent from one hemisphere to the other. Using the above formula the difference is roughly less than 30 million years. The different datasets such as HOLIVOW etc already noted a margin error of 6 Mpc/sec/Mpc between local group and far range measurements. Yet these all equate to fine tuning. None of this is as profound as media tries to make them. Particularly since the Chandra telescope can only examine a limited range of frequencies that correspond to our local region. It can never get the full picture. Lol no telescope gets that. You must take each piece of the puzzle and find the best fit.

Values are meaningless unless you understand how they relate to other values via their appropriate ratios. This is where understanding where those values become significant in the formulas they apply to become significant.

In all fairness though dipole anistropy isn't something easily understood. You won't see much detail outside of textbooks covering this detail. When I get a chance I will post the mathematics via Matt Roose Introductory to Cosmology.

The thing to understand about telescopes is that they have effective ranges. Chandra doesn't have the range of Planck or Hubble. The limitation is inherent in the wavelengths it has been designed to collect. It's primary goal is to collect data on our local region of spacetime. Of which it does an incredible job. However one can have local anistropy without affecting the global distribution. Stars, galaxies etc are all examples. In cosmology homogeneity and isotropy is only affective at scales of 100 Mpc. The Milky way galaxy is only between 460 to 720 kpc. Exact value is difficult to determine as we cannot see directly it's diameter. Our local group has several nearby anistropies such as the great attractor. This causes other side effects on luminosity measurements etc. For example there is a study our local region may be underdense due to the great attractor. The first lesson a cosmologist learns is never trust a single dataset as fact. It is only after dozens of datasets come upon agreement do you develop a good confidence level by numerous independent studies and numerous independent equipment.

This paper isn't conclusive enough to worry about. Dipole anistropy is something that all telescopes encounter and the common factor is our own motion. Planck encountered this in its first dataset and had to calibrate our local influences to correct the dipole anistropy. This looks to be something that Chandra must also look into. The paper gives several possibilities one of those is the movement of our local group as being a viable influence. This is the one I would think is the most likely. I will examine the paper in more detail but on first reading I didn't see anything conclusive or significant enough to require deviating from the Homogeneous and isotropic expansion (cosmological principle). The Z ranges I saw appear mostly local group.

One major point is that it doesn't matter how the OP believes concerning the speed of light. experimental evidence trumps any argument the OP can present

The formula would be be too complex to explain to the average layman lmao

Your welcome. I gave you a +1 as your showing more interest in learning. Keep it up

Correct vary the value of the Hubble constant and you will get a different age of the universe upon calculation. The simple estimate formula is [math]t_h=\frac{1}{H}[/math] Hubble time being the inverse of the Hubble constant. This a first order estimate more complex is to incorporate the evolution of the density parameters such as matter and radiation with the cosmological constant being constant. The former method though does give a ballpark figure. (Though you will have to convert the units)

Ok good one of the things to understand is that we have to rely on measurements of expansion rate to calculate the age of the universe. The formula used involves the Hubble parameter. This parameter will vary somewhat between different datasets as we fine tune it's precision. So you will get some variations of age between older to newer research papers etc. Though with current accuracy the precision is getting far more accurate.

I should have been clearer, whether or not one can accurately describe the surface temperature as a blackbody is a topic under considerable debate. The restriction I'm aware of is the Geminga effect. Here is a relevant paper https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9501033 It was 5 am when I posted on the way to work so was a bit rushed. Anyways I've seen numerous papers over the years that indicate treating the surface temperature of a neutron star as a blackbody is unrealistic. A black hole though is a near perfect blackbody while it's questionable if a neutron star can be accurately approximated with a blackbody. As as I understand the debate.

No neutron stars do not emit blackbody radiation, though they do emit other forms of radiation such as electromagnetic.

Look at the equation [math]E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}[/math] Both h and c are both constants, as the wavelength changes the energy varies. However the speed of light does not. There has been numerous tests of the constancy of light. One of the more commonly known is the one eay/two way speed tests of the Michelson Morley tests. However modern tests took that to incredible precision using inferometers etc. The speed of light is far too important not to diligently test it in any method imaginable. So you really have your work cut out for you to prove those tests wrong.