Quantum Fluctuation Origin and Anti-Gravity Voids Expansion Theory of the Universe

[beecee]

8 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

. BeeCee brought the created particle in as a diversion, apparently without even looking at the articles I included that clearly show an anti-matter/anti-gravity void propelling our local group of galaxies at speeds far greater than what they normally would be moving.  I think it's easy to see in the original post.

All hypothetical at this time. The expansion of the universe is associated with the BB...The acceleration in that expansion at this time is caused by some "force"attributed to space itself, and which we call DE...this DE as I already mentioned, could be loosely called anti gravity because it acts against gravity in its act of pulling galaxies over smaller scales together.

Quote

One of the most important aspects though of my speculation is that it easily accounts for the large structures like the Great Wall which should not be there in the time frame approved, along with the mature galaxies in the distant universe.

Speculation is great, and its good that you finally recognise it as speculation, because we actually have an explanation already, that shows gravity over smaller scales, over rides the large scale expansion observations.

 

Quote

 If spacetime were seeded across its measurements time becomes no hindrance to those maturations because everything began at the same time with no need for Inflation or frequent expansions of the age of the universe, that being a constant since BB was proposed. That thought is explained further in my posts above.

I fail to understand what you are saying. What's wrong with the far simpler explanation of spacetime evolution, with matter being formed after phase transitions and false vacuums resulting fro Superforce decoupling, which afterall is evident to many degrees in particle accelerators around the world.

Quote

I'm finding more solid science all the time for the idea.  If I'm not booted again I'll be presenting what I find.

I don't see any "solid science" at all in fact. Nothing you have shown or said can invalidate what we observe that indicates the BB as currently known for the evolution of the universe.

Quote

Also, I hope everyone realizes the idea works with Relativity, so I'm not trying to topple Einstein, I don't have enough understanding for that, my talent seems to be the big picture into which I and others fit the details.

Both the BB and Einstein's GR are on solid ground at this time, and both compliment each other. The hypothetical article and paper are still just that....hypothetical.

 

6 hours ago, Strange said:

The only place I can see that anti-matter is mentioned is the Villata paper. Does anyone else provide any support for this idea?

Yep, While small indications of anti matter are sometimes indicated in cosmic rays, the likelyhood of any large scale existence of anti matter is remote at best I would suggest for obvious reasons.

Edited December 3, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

The only place I can see that anti-matter is mentioned is the Villata paper. Does anyone else provide any support for this idea?

Go for the Nobel, Strange.  Why not.  You might be interested in how I hit on the idea of Void growth driving Expansion.  I saw a simulation of the universe .. simple as that almost.  Olde sailors knew the world was not flat because when they looked out to sea at a returning ship they saw the topmast first, then the lower masts, then she top of the hull, then the hull .. you've probably seen the illustration or visualized it yourself. The sailors realized easily the ocean was curved, not flat.  If the ocean was curved, the earth was probably curved to. 

One day I was browsing images of cosmology, and got interested in an image of the mapped known universe, I saw the swollen Voids, roughly like birthday party balloons being blown up. But the filaments of matter didn't push into the voids, rather the voids compressed the matter, so there had to be something pushing against matter .. which has to be anti-matter, anti-gravity, very simple, like wind blowing a tree.  Voids are now know to have a 'shell,' like an egg.  The Voids expand and contract, smaller Voids drawn into larger ones like multiple soap bubbles. The shell must allow Void to pass into Void, but act as a barrier between the anti-matter in the void, and the matter outside, to keep them from annihilating.  There's one more element to that account, but it will have to wait another day or week or month.  If you get the Nobel, send me an invitation to the ceremony.

Edited December 3, 2018 by coffeesippin
Clarification

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

, I saw the swollen Voids, roughly like birthday party balloons being blown up. But the filaments of matter didn't push into the voids, rather the voids compressed the matter, so there had to be something pushing against matter .. which has to be anti-matter, anti-gravity, very simple, like wind blowing a tree.  Voids are now know to have a 'shell,' like an egg.  The Voids expand and contract, smaller Voids drawn into larger ones like multiple soap bubbles. The shell must allow Void to pass into Void, but act as a barrier between the anti-matter in the void, and the matter outside, to keep them from annihilating.  

Yet all that hypothetical mishmash can be easily explained and observed through gravity. 

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Go for the Nobel, Strange.  Why not.  You might be interested in how I hit on the idea of Void growth driving Expansion.  I saw a simulation of the universe .. simple as that almost.  Olde sailors knew the world was not flat because when they looked out to sea at a returning ship they saw the topmast first, then the lower masts, then she top of the hull, then the hull .. you've probably seen the illustration or visualized it yourself. The sailors realized easily the ocean was curved, not flat.  If the ocean was curved, the earth was probably curved to. 

One day I was browsing images of cosmology, and got interested in an image of the mapped known universe, I saw the swollen Voids, roughly like birthday party balloons being blown up. But the filaments of matter didn't push into the voids, rather the voids compressed the matter, so there had to be something pushing against matter .. which has to be anti-matter, anti-gravity, very simple, like wind blowing a tree.  Voids are now know to have a 'shell,' like an egg.  The Voids expand and contract, smaller Voids drawn into larger ones like multiple soap bubbles. The shell must allow Void to pass into Void, but act as a barrier between the anti-matter in the void, and the matter outside, to keep them from annihilating.  There's one more element to that account, but it will have to wait another day or week or month.  If you get the Nobel, send me an invitation to the ceremony.

So no evidence for antimatter, then. Just Villata's assumptions and your guesswork.

If the voids were full of antimatter then it would be obvious because of the annihilation where it met with matter.

[coffeesippin]

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

So no evidence for antimatter, then. Just Villata's assumptions and your guesswork.

If the voids were full of antimatter then it would be obvious because of the annihilation where it met with matter.

The shell prevents the matter outside and anti-matter inside from touching.  A plasma shell probably.  Thing is, the effect has been measured, our group is being pushed by the void beside it.  I guess if we had evidence this thread would not be in Speculation.  But I'm sure there is a huge rush on to be the first person or group to confirm this stuff.   Ten years ago I knew it would take a decade or more for findings to become apparent.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

The shell prevents the matter outside and anti-matter inside from touching.  A plasma shell probably. 

If the shell is made of matter, it will annihilate with the antimatter inside.

If the shell is made of antimatter, it will annihilate with the matter outside.

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Thing is, the effect has been measured, our group is being pushed by the void beside it. 

And that does not need antimatter, or even antigravity to explain it. Otherwise the papers and article reporting it would be screaming "antigravity" and "antimatter". They are, not surprisingly, silent on the subject.

 

[coffeesippin]

This is interesting.   http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1990MNRAS.247..473M&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES

Just now, Strange said:

If the shell is made of matter, it will annihilate with the antimatter inside.

If the shell is made of antimatter, it will annihilate with the matter outside.

And that does not need antimatter, or even antigravity to explain it. Otherwise the papers and article reporting it would be screaming "antigravity" and "antimatter". They are, not surprisingly, silent on the subject.

 

 

And if the shell is neutral?  An insulator of some type?  How long did it take us to find a way of using electricity?  These questions only seem complex because the answer is not known.  

The problems arise when we set our minds against an idea.  One person with a positive attitude will achieve.  The person with the negative attitude will fall behind.  

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The problems arise when we set our minds against an idea.  One person with a positive attitude will achieve.  The person with the negative attitude will fall behind.  

I once heard an old adage that went like this....It's great to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out

Edited December 3, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

Does this stuff mean anything to you?

3 Expansion Rate of the Antimatter Cloud Using the AIV model proposed in this paper, the voids containing clouds of mutually repelling anti-hydrogen atoms would cause the spaces between the galaxies to expand. To calculate the expansion rate due to the antimatter, a Gaussian spherical surface is centered at an arbitrary point in an antimatter cloud. Using Gauss's law applied to gravity, the g-eld at the surface of a sphere relative to the sphere's center is g = GM/r2 . To calculate the

g M = ρ(4/3 πr3 ) results in g = d 2 r dt2 = 2G r 2 ρ4πr3 3 = 8πGρr 3 . In the form of a dierential equation: d 2 r dt2 − 8πGρ 3 r = 0. Solving the dierential equation for r and nding v/r will gives an expansion rate of v r = r 8πGρ 3 . By setting the expansion rate of antimatter equal to the Hubble constant of 2.40 × 10−18 s −1 , the density of antimatter required to match the observed expansion rate of the Universe can be calculated as ρ = 3H2 0 8πG = 1.03 × 10−26 kg m−3 . This value equates to approximately 6 anti-hydrogen atoms per cubic meter and could contribute to, or be related to the eect known as Dark Energy.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1001.0007v2.pdf      I can't do the math, but I can understand the principles.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

And if the shell is neutral?  An insulator of some type? 

You are suggesting some new unknown type of matter that doesn't interact with either matter or antimatter but is able to hold them apart?

That is pretty extraordinary new physics. We are well beyond suggesting that antimatter has antigravity.

Especially when it is to explain something that is explained perfectly well by standard physics.

15 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

This is interesting.   http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1990MNRAS.247..473M&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES

What specifically is interesting about it? I don't really want to read a 6 page paper and have to guess why you posted it.

[coffeesippin]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

I once heard an old adage that went like this....It's great to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out

Fear of the brain falling out keeps the mind from opening.  Fear is the enemy.  I have nothing to fear in this.  I have nothing to lose.  I have nothing to gain either.  Well, other than being invited to a Nobel ceremony.  

 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are suggesting some new unknown type of matter that doesn't interact with either matter or antimatter but is able to hold them apart?

That is pretty extraordinary new physics. We are well beyond suggesting that antimatter has antigravity.

Especially when it is to explain something that is explained perfectly well by standard physics.

What specifically is interesting about it? I don't really want to read a 6 page paper and have to guess why you posted it.

You don't need to read the paper, just puruse it.   If you can't understand the math that I set before you, I guess you won't be getting the Nobel, and I won't be going to Sweden.  

I have a guest now I have to go maybe Judy will win the Nobel.

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

You don't need to read the paper, just puruse it. 

So it has no particular relevance to supporting your case here? It is another paper on voids. We know voids exist. So ... meh.

[beecee]

56 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Fear of the brain falling out keeps the mind from opening.  Fear is the enemy.  I have nothing to fear in this.  I have nothing to lose.  I have nothing to gain either.  Well, other than being invited to a Nobel ceremony.  .

No one fears the brain falling out...Those that are simply so wide open minded, are unaware of such disasters and ridicule. 

In summing, your article is sheer hypothetical in near all respects. Professor Hawking is also having a paper published [if it hasn't been already published] based on a hypothetical and speculative scenario. Like I said, nothing wrong with that, except those that accept it valid at this time.

Anti matter simply does not exist in the quantities that are envisaged in your article, and as Strange said, gravity explains all that anyway....the web like structure, the voids etc etc etc....

 

ps: Better correct an over-sight before I get picked up on it [nudge nudge, wink, wink]  Professor Hawking is also having a paper published, should be of course, "Professor Hawking is also having a paper published posthumously" In fact more then one.

Edited December 3, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

So it has no particular relevance to supporting your case here? It is another paper on voids. We know voids exist. So ... meh.

We KNEW Voids existed as empty spaces .. now we KNOW they are dynamic structures .. we are just finding out how dynamic, but I've posted before how the nearest void is pushing our groups at a high rate of speed.  I hoped you'd get interested, but ..

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-void-pushes-milky-way-3001201723/

[Q-reeus]

coffeesippin - you may have noticed I'm the only one to point out a basic physics reason why it's hugely unlikely anti-matter anti-gravitates. There is more. To itemize:

1: Consistent observations of deflection in magnetic fields shows that at least for charged anti-matter, matter and anti-matter inertial mass are equal. Equivalence Principle then requires equivalence of gravitational mass. Only Wheeler-Feynman notion of anti-particles being ordinary particles traveling backwards in time logiocally suggests anti-particles anti-gravitate. But since that violates EP as per above, few these days give the idea any credence (1: here already covered in earlier post).

2: When particle-anti-particle annihilation occurs e.g. electron-positron -> gamma ray pair, one doesn't have a net zero gravitational mass outcome. Which outcome should be the logical expectation if indeed the input is positive gravitational mass electron + negative gravitational mass positron. (There is also a conundrum for standard physics hidden in positron-electron annihilation btw, but I won't expand on that here). Point is, anti-gravitation of anti-particle idea fundamentally conflicts with the expectation of conserved net gravitational mass.

3: According to the vixra article you cited earlier: http://vixra.org/pdf/1001.0007v2.pdf
, anti-particle anti-gravitation has a very strange character. Anti-particles repel both ordinary particles AND other anti-particles. Which is equivalent to claiming negatively charged particles repel each other and attract positively charged particles (what actually occurs), but positively charged particles attract negatively charged AND other positively charged particles (which does NOT occur). Hence there is imo no logical consistency to what that author posits. It leads to bizarre runaway scenarios.

4: The standard picture requires BSM physics to cope with the observed ~ 1 to 10^10 ratio between matter particle and photon numbers. Which outcome implies a slight asymmetry between particle and anti-particle annihilation in the very early universe. As posited by voids = anti-matter regions scenario, there is actually a perfect net balance between matter and anti-matter in current universe. But there simply was no chance for gravity to appreciably separate matter from anti-matter in the early hot BB. Either total annihilation to radiation occurred if there was no BSM annihilation asymmetry, or you have the standard picture of an entirely matter over anti-matter dominated matter content.

It's ok to hypothesize a radically new model, but also important to dispassionately check for consistency with known physical principles and their implications.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Q-reeus

[beecee]

35 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

coffeesippin - you may have noticed I'm the only one to point out a basic physics reason why it's hugely unlikely anti-matter anti-gravitates. There is more. To itemize:

Pretty common knowledge I suggest...and I did make the comment and I'm sure Strange also inferred, that if all the matter we saw was anti matter, then we would be calling that anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter....if you get my drift. In other words no noticable difference from normal matter, including obviously any inferences of anti gravity.

Quote

It's ok to hypothesize a radically new model, but also important to dispassionately check for consistency with known physical principles and their implications.

Good! Exactly as most of us have been telling coffeesipin.

2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

We KNEW Voids existed as empty spaces .. now we KNOW they are dynamic structures .. we are just finding out how dynamic, but I've posted before how the nearest void is pushing our groups at a high rate of speed.  I hoped you'd get interested, but ..

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-void-pushes-milky-way-3001201723/

Did you read your own article? It says nothing about anti matter for one thing, says nothing about any invalidation of the BB, mentions numerous times and infers gravity is responsible for the web like structure of the galaxies etc. Also the voids present, are simply areas where space is less dense, and as such the DE component of space would be more apparent then areas between the voids and where the webs are. Also any group of galaxies near the edge of a void, would appear to be accelerating away from the void towards denser regions of space. As I mentioned previously, regions such as our local group and even beyond, are completely decoupled from the expansion. 

I would also suggest that you check out the Q+A in your link, re similar questions and answers that have already been given to you here. In essence as myself, Strange and Q-reeus have said, this [your OP] is entirely hypothetical and lacks any observational evidence, and is against many laws of physics that we know to exist. The BB is overwhelmingly supported by the available  evidence. It is a scientific theory and model that gives us a reasonable insight to how we evolved from t+10-43 seconds right up to the present time. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by beecee

[Q-reeus]

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

Pretty common knowledge I suggest...and I did make the comment and I'm sure Strange also inferred, that if all the matter we saw was anti matter, then we would be calling that anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter....if you get my drift. In other words no noticable difference from normal matter, including obviously any inferences of anti gravity...

 

Really? Then if my itemized list was such 'common knowledge', why only I made the responsible effort to actually post it all here? No need to answer btw. It's all too obvious - obviously.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Q-reeus said:

Really? Then if my itemized list was such 'common knowledge', why only I made the responsible effort to actually post it all here? No need to answer btw. It's all too obvious - obviously.

Yes really...And I didn't say it was your excellent itemized list that was common knowledge. the common knowledge is that anti matter and matter react similarly. Your itemized list was not really necessary in light of the other errors of judgment and claims in the OP and the thread in general. But yes, an excellent summary.  thanks for that.

Edited December 4, 2018 by beecee

[Q-reeus]

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes really...And I didn't say it was your excellent itemized list that was common knowledge. the common knowledge is that anti matter and matter react similarly. Your itemized list was not really necessary in light of the other errors of judgment and claims in the OP and the thread in general. But yes, an excellent summary.  thanks for that.

OK thanks that sufficiently clarifies.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

but I've posted before how the nearest void is pushing our groups at a high rate of speed.

Again, not too surprising. And not evidence of antigravity or antimatter.

[coffeesippin]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Again, not too surprising. And not evidence of antigravity or antimatter.

Why is it not surprising?  A VERY short time has passed since Voids were advertised as being mere empty space.  This link http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/gigantic-voids-are-expanding-and-shrinking/  says perhaps gravity is making some voids larger, but that would work only if the Void WAS mere empty space, and the void would be lopsided on the enlarged side, like an egg perhaps , whereas they're described as roughly spherical.  For the Void to remain spherical when pulled, it would have to be dynamic, like a soap bubble in the air, not empty space. Why would voids be dynamic if not constructed of something?   Anti-matter not only filling the Void but expanding it answers those questions, but explains why our local group appears to be moving twice as fast as gravity explanation alone allows.  https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-void-pushes-milky-way-3001201723/       

What do you see voids capable of pushing a group of galaxies as being constructed of? 

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Why is it not surprising? 

A VERY short time has passed since Voids were advertised as being mere empty space.  This link http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/gigantic-voids-are-expanding-and-shrinking/  says perhaps gravity is making some voids larger, but that would work only if the Void WAS mere empty space, and the void would be lopsided on the enlarged side, like an egg perhaps , whereas they're described as roughly spherical.  For the Void to remain spherical when pulled, it would have to be dynamic, like a soap bubble in the air, not empty space. Why would voids be dynamic if not constructed of something?   Anti-matter not only filling the Void but expanding it answers those questions, but explains why our local group appears to be moving twice as fast as gravity explanation alone allows.  https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-void-pushes-milky-way-3001201723/      

 

The universe is dynamic, so its not surprising that voids [space] are also possibly dynamic. The dynamic nature as you have continually been informed, depends on the density of the region. 

Quote

What do you see voids capable of pushing a group of galaxies as being constructed of? 

Did you read your own article? It says nothing about anti matter for one thing, says nothing about any invalidation of the BB, mentions numerous times and infers gravity is responsible for the web like structure of the galaxies etc. Also the voids present, are simply areas where space is less dense, and as such the DE component of space would be more apparent then areas between the voids and where the webs are. Also any group of galaxies near the edge of a void, would appear to be accelerating away from the void towards denser regions of space. As I mentioned previously, regions such as our local group and even beyond, are completely decoupled from the expansion. 

I would also suggest that you check out the Q+A in your link, re similar questions and answers that have already been given to you here. In essence as myself, Strange and Q-reeus have said, this [your OP] is entirely hypothetical and lacks any observational evidence, and is against many laws of physics that we know to exist. The BB is overwhelmingly supported by the available  evidence. It is a scientific theory and model that gives us a reasonable insight to how we evolved from t+10-43 seconds right up to the present time. 

 

[coffeesippin]

4 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

coffeesippin - you may have noticed I'm the only one to point out a basic physics reason why it's hugely unlikely anti-matter anti-gravitates. There is more. To itemize:

1: Consistent observations of deflection in magnetic fields shows that at least for charged anti-matter, matter and anti-matter inertial mass are equal. Equivalence Principle then requires equivalence of gravitational mass. Only Wheeler-Feynman notion of anti-particles being ordinary particles traveling backwards in time logiocally suggests anti-particles anti-gravitate. But since that violates EP as per above, few these days give the idea any credence (1: here already covered in earlier post).

2: When particle-anti-particle annihilation occurs e.g. electron-positron -> gamma ray pair, one doesn't have a net zero gravitational mass outcome. Which outcome should be the logical expectation if indeed the input is positive gravitational mass electron + negative gravitational mass positron. (There is also a conundrum for standard physics hidden in positron-electron annihilation btw, but I won't expand on that here). Point is, anti-gravitation of anti-particle idea fundamentally conflicts with the expectation of conserved net gravitational mass.

3: According to the vixra article you cited earlier: http://vixra.org/pdf/1001.0007v2.pdf
, anti-particle anti-gravitation has a very strange character. Anti-particles repel both ordinary particles AND other anti-particles. Which is equivalent to claiming negatively charged particles repel each other and attract positively charged particles (what actually occurs), but positively charged particles attract negatively charged AND other positively charged particles (which does NOT occur). Hence there is imo no logical consistency to what that author posits. It leads to bizarre runaway scenarios.

4: The standard picture requires BSM physics to cope with the observed ~ 1 to 10^10 ratio between matter particle and photon numbers. Which outcome implies a slight asymmetry between particle and anti-particle annihilation in the very early universe. As posited by voids = anti-matter regions scenario, there is actually a perfect net balance between matter and anti-matter in current universe. But there simply was no chance for gravity to appreciably separate matter from anti-matter in the early hot BB. Either total annihilation to radiation occurred if there was no BSM annihilation asymmetry, or you have the standard picture of an entirely matter over anti-matter dominated matter content.

It's ok to hypothesize a radically new model, but also important to dispassionately check for consistency with known physical principles and their implications.

Thanks Q for the post.   I'll point out that your summary sentence has to consider one of your primary sentences .. "it's hugely unlikely anti-matter anti-gravitates."    I don't mean to nit pick or make small of important considerations, but known physical principles and their implications change over time.  A mere few years ago Voids were KNOWN as mere empty space.  Now they are KNOWN as dynamic constructs.  That's a huge change.  Non locality a very short time back was considered a lunatic idea, your "bizarre runaway scenarios" would aptly describe the general mood.  I'm content to wait for changes to occur in our knowledge of known physical principles while putting out ideas based on observation, which is what mine is, my observation of the structure of the universe from a map developed with the most advanced information told me the voids were pushing on the filaments.  Fragments of the filaments do not pierce the Voids, the voids remain roughly spherical. Something inside the void is opposing matter, regardless of our understanding of the mechanisms.  if you and I live another ten healthy years we're going to see more enormous changes than we've seen in the past ten. Time is a great teacher.  This discussion is a great use of time.

I think I just had to reaffirm my 'ignore" of BeeCee on this thread, but I've been switching threads, so perhaps it was another thread in which his repetition of what I consider worn out argument and insults were major reasons for my not too difficult choice of putting him on ignore in the first place.  Maybe in  time the situation will change.

[Q-reeus]

I skimmed back through earlier posts just to check if there was a link to fairly recent large scale cosmic evolution simulations. Here's one hit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qqEzBG9OI
Indicates just how good the match between theory prediction and observation has become. No input assuming anti-gravity anywhere.
Another one that goes into technical details I cannot follow but you get the idea it's very complex with lots of factors involved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI12X2zczqI
Again - the physics makes no use of anti-gravity to arrive at voids and webs structures actually observed. Recall too that growth is in part a consequence of an overall cosmic expansion - hence voids growing reflects that.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Q-reeus

[Strange]

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

A VERY short time has passed since Voids were advertised as being mere empty space. 

I have never seen them described as empty space. Areas of lower density and without the large scale structures such as galaxies and filaments. But only very poor quality journalism would report them as being empty.

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

Anti-matter not only filling the Void but expanding it answers those questions, but explains why our local group appears to be moving twice as fast as gravity explanation alone allows.

You have been given multiple reasons, by various people, why it is highly unlikely there is antimatter in the voids and why it is even more unlikely that antimatter has negative mass.

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

What do you see voids capable of pushing a group of galaxies as being constructed of?

Did you miss the fact that it says "pushes" in quotes? That is important.

Would consider the fact that the Moon raises tides on the opposite side of the Earth by "pushing" the water to be evidence of the Moon being made of antimatter? Because that is pretty much your argument.

6 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

I skimmed back through earlier posts just to check if there was a link to fairly recent large scale cosmic evolution simulations.

Excellent point. As these simulations do not include antimatter with negative mass but do include dark matter and reproduce the sort of structures we see, says it all.

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

Something inside the void is opposing matter, regardless of our understanding of the mechanisms.

No, the void exists because of an absence of matter, not because some magic has pushed the matter away.