Astrophysicists Discover Unfathomably Large Intergalactic Gas Filament

Abell 3391/95 System Optical Image

Optical image of the Abell 3391/95 system taken with the DECam camera. Superimposed are the eROSITA image (darker = higher gas density) and radio contours (yellow) of the ASKAP telescope. Credit: Reiprich et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics

Study confirms models on the evolution of our universe.

More than half of the matter in our universe has so far remained hidden from us. However, astrophysicists had a hunch where it might be: In so-called filaments, unfathomably large thread-like structures of hot gas that surround and connect galaxies and galaxy clusters. A team led by the University of Bonn has now for the first time observed a gas filament with a length of 50 million light years. Its structure is strikingly similar to the predictions of computer simulations. The observation therefore also confirms our ideas about the origin and evolution of our universe. The results are published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

We owe our existence to a tiny aberration. Pretty much exactly 13.8 billion years ago, the Big Bang occurred. It is the beginning of space and time, but also of all matter that makes up our universe today. Although it was initially concentrated at one point, it expanded at breakneck speed — a gigantic gas cloud in which matter was almost uniformly distributed.

Almost, but not completely: In some parts the cloud was a bit denser than in others. And for this reason alone there are planets, stars, and galaxies today. This is because the denser areas exerted slightly higher gravitational forces, which drew the gas from their surroundings towards them. More and more matter therefore concentrated at these regions over time. The space between them, however, became emptier and emptier. Over the course of a good 13 billion years, a kind of sponge structure developed: large “holes” without any matter, with areas in between where thousands of galaxies are gathered in a small space, so-called galaxy clusters.

Abell 3391/95 System eROSITA X-ray Image

Still image from a simulation showing the distribution of hot gas (left), compared with the eROSITA X-ray image of the Abell 3391/95 system (right). Credit: Reiprich et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics

Fine web of gas threads

If it really happened that way, the galaxies and clusters should still be connected by remnants of this gas, like the gossamer-thin threads of a spider web. “According to calculations, more than half of all baryonic matter in our universe is contained in these filaments — this is the form of matter of which stars and planets are composed, as are we ourselves,” explains Prof. Dr. Thomas Reiprich from the Argelander Institute for Astronomy at the University of Bonn. Yet it has so far escaped our gaze: Due to the enormous expansion of the filaments, the matter in them is extremely diluted: It contains just ten particles per cubic meter, which is much less than the best vacuum we can create on Earth.

However, with a new measuring instrument, the eROSITA space telescope, Reiprich, and his colleagues were now able to make the gas fully visible for the first time. “eROSITA has very sensitive detectors for the type of X-ray radiation that emanates from the gas in filaments,” explains Reiprich. “It also has a large field of view — like a wide-angle lens, it captures a relatively large part of the sky in a single measurement, and at a very high resolution.” This allows detailed images of such huge objects as filaments to be taken in a comparatively short time.

Abell 3391/95 System eROSITA Image

In this view of the eROSITA image (right; left again a simulation for comparison) the very faint areas of thin gas are also visible. Credit: left: Reiprich et al., Space Science Reviews, 177, 195; right: Reiprich et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics

Confirmation of the standard model

In their study, the researchers examined a celestial object called Abell 3391/95. This is a system of three galaxy clusters, which is about 700 million light years away from us. The eROSITA images show not only the clusters and numerous individual galaxies, but also the gas filaments connecting these structures. The entire filament is 50 million light-years long. But it may be even more enormous: The scientists assume that the images only show a section.

“We compared our observations with the results of a simulation that reconstructs the evolution of the universe,” explains Reiprich. “The eROSITA images are strikingly similar to computer-generated graphics. This suggests that the widely accepted standard model for the evolution of the universe is correct.” Most importantly, the data show that the missing matter is probably actually hidden in the filaments.

Reiprich is also a member of the Transdisciplinary Research Area (TRA) “Building blocks of matter and fundamental interactions” at the University of Bonn. In six different TRAs, scientists from the most diverse faculties and disciplines come together to work collaboratively on future-relevant research topics of the University of Excellence.

Reference: “The Abell 3391/95 galaxy cluster system – A 15 Mpc intergalactic medium emission filament, a warm gas bridge, infalling matter clumps, and (re-) accelerated plasma discovered by combining SRG/eROSITA data with ASKAP/EMU and DECam data” by T. H. Reiprich, A. Veronica, F. Pacaud, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, N. Ota, J. Sanders, M. Kara, T. Erben, M. Klein, J. Erler, J. Kerp, D. N. Hoang, M. Brüggen, J. Marvil, L. Rudnick, V. Biffi, K. Dolag, J. Aschersleben, K. Basu, H. Brunner, E. Bulbul, K. Dennerl, D. Eckert, M. Freyberg, E. Gatuzz, V. Ghirardini, F. Käfer, A. Merloni, K. Migkas, K. Nandra, P. Predehl, J. Robrade, M. Salvato, B. Whelan, A. Diaz-Ocampo, D. Hernandez-Lang, A. Zenteno, M. J. I. Brown, J. D. Collier, J. M. Diego, A. M. Hopkins, A. Kapinska, B. Koribalski, T. Mroczkowski, R. P. Norris, A. O’Brien and E. Vardoulaki, 26 February 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics.
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039590

Participating institutions and funding:

Almost 50 scientists from institutions in Germany, the USA, Switzerland, Chile, Australia, Spain, South Africa, and Japan participated in the study.

eROSITA was developed with funding from the Max Planck Society and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The telescope was launched into space last year on board a Russian-German satellite whose construction was supported by the Russian space agency Roskosmos. This work also used the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) on the Víctor M. Blanco 4-meter Telescope at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, a Program of NSF’s NOIRLab, and the Australian Square Kilometer Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) telescope, built and operated by CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation). The current study was funded by several research funding organizations in the participating countries.

48 Comments on "Astrophysicists Discover Unfathomably Large Intergalactic Gas Filament"

  1. There are MUCH larger structures in the universe than these filaments; structures spanning over 30 BILLION light-years in length and whose very existence place Big Bang theory in the dumpster. It’s time to accept it- Big Bang is a Dodo.

    • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You didn’t even provide a description.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 5:16 am | Reply

      The largest known putative structure is the galaxy clusters comprising the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall of 10 billion light years maximum dimension [ ].

      We expect structure formation in modern inflationary hot big bang cosmology – it is a result of quantum fluctuations in the inflation field – and so they are used as test for the theory. So far it has passed every test thrown at it.

      Here are the test for the inflationary era that seed the later cosmic web of gas and galaxy cluster filaments – “produce the seeds of density fluctuations”:

      “1. There should be an upper-limit to the maximum temperature the Universe achieves post-inflation; it cannot approach the Planck scale of ~10^19 GeV.
      2. Super-horizon fluctuations, or fluctuations on scales larger than light could have traversed since the Big Bang, should exist.
      3. The quantum fluctuations during inflation should produce the seeds of density fluctuations, and they should be 100% adiabatic and 0% isocurvature. (Where adiabatic and isocurvature are the two allowed classes.)
      4. These fluctuations should be almost perfectly scale-invariant, but should have slightly greater magnitudes on larger scales than smaller ones.
      5. The Universe should be nearly, but not quite, perfectly flat, with quantum effects producing curvature only at the 0.01% level or below.
      6. And the Universe should be filled with primordial gravitational waves, which should imprint on the cosmic microwave background as B-modes.”

      [“Ask Ethan: How Well Has Cosmic Inflation Been Verified?” @ Forbes]

      The Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall is disputed. “Doubt has been placed on the existence of the structure in other studies, positing that the structure was found through biases in certain statistical tests, without considering the full effects of extinction.” [“Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall” @ Wikipedia]

      And the next one down in size is also disputed and so on. I don’t think anyone has established a definite break with the expected distribution of structure size in that way.

      And mind – if you rage against the Big Bang theory you may be 40 years out of date. See my comment on modern cosmology for that.

      • I liked this comment. Most of it is over my head, but I am enjoying the part of the big bang debate that centers on structures that are extremely distant yet almost impossibly large. It is a constant reminder of how little we actually know.

  2. Darryl Anderson | December 27, 2020 at 8:19 pm | Reply

    I have just one nagging question. Where or what did the matter that was the Big Bang come from?

    • Read Urantia, you will learn much more than this aberation called theory 🙂

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 5:26 am | Reply

      The short explanation is that the hot big bang radiation resulted from the release of the potential field energy as the inflation field vanished.

      [C.f. ” “What Happened Before the Big Bang?” @ PBS Space Time.]

      But if you are perplexed by why there would be a field before the hot big bang (and that video doesn’t cover that entirely), see my long comment on how modern cosmology has been an inflationary hot big bang cosmology for a long time now.

  3. The first chapter in Genesis tells how it was made. Also there is mention of it in the book of Job.

  4. @Breathgasp.
    “Gawdidit” Yeah, that’s original. You should write a paper about it.

  5. Energy to matter and local event creates the superstructures…God has zero to do with it. Such superstructures were predicted and expected then now proven. it is good news but it not a god thing as one dared claim and forcing me to teach it is science and MYTHS are lies we tell ourselves in stories of how things took place to replace science.

  6. Sadly, matter or energy as a start still does not answer the question where did it originate..
    If it takes faith to believe that God made it, it is the same kind of faith that claims it just is.
    Science is still groping in the dark as it struggles to understand even it’s most basic assumptiin

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 5:31 am | Reply

      Superstition is based on belief.

      Science is based on fact. As for where the universe matter and energy comes from in the hot big bang, see my comments on that – we know this for facts.

      That you don’t know we know this is your own problem. Thanks for letting us know, but more constructively: study what we know.

  7. Bill Joel says it best. No matter whether one believes it is science 100% or God created, the questions always beg the question how did it start? There had to be a starting point, and a prime mover. You don’t energy without creating it. Matter doesn’t just appear, unless its created, so either way, there’s a starting point. In other words, God can create anything from ‘nothing’, absolutely nothing. Science can’t..

    • Have always questioned the origin of what appears to be space and matter and how the energy recreates. Have always surmised that what is observed is a replication of infinite processes that appear to transition through parallel dimensions that quite possibly defy the collective capacity of the human brain.

  8. Bill Joel says it best. No matter whether one believes it is science 100% or God created, the questions always beg the question how did it start? There had to be a starting point, and a prime mover. You don’t energy without creating it. Matter doesn’t just appear, unless its created, so either way, there’s a starting point. In other words, God can create anything from ‘nothing’, absolutely nothing. Science can’t..

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 5:43 am | Reply

      Lots of irrelevant claims born out of superstition.

      It is superstition, based on a child’s evolved development stage of understanding object permance no doubt, that claims there must be a “nothing”. Since all we see is something, how far out and back in time we look, we don’t expect anything else. And what would define and test “nothing”? It isn’t scientific at its basis – it is the made up of superstition.

      Here is a fun fact for you: space is flat – we know this from observation back in 2018 and it is well tested since then. That means all the energy and all the work of the universe must each sum to zero, and that expansion is an adiabatic free, i.e. spontanoeus, process. That means that we now have an observational constraint telling us that the entire universe is the result of a natural process at all times – zero sum energy kills theism (we see no magic action) and spontaneous process kills deism (we see no magic specification).

      But even if we now have killed all ‘gods’ magic, we have also established that the universe is a big fat zero as regards energy. We don’t have to worry about where its energy came from, and conversely a zero energy system sits at its ground state indefinitely so we don’t have to worry about ‘comings froms’ or ‘nothingnesses” either.

      • Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 5:53 am | Reply

        “spontanoeus, process” = spontaneous, process.

        Also, to expand on the ground state, it wouldn’t be the state of our, presumably local, hot big bang universe but of the larger universe which remains inflating for the most part – inflating volumes expand much faster than any hot big bang volumes would. The 2018 observation of a slow roll inflation [see the PBS video “What Happened Before The Big Bang” for an explanation] would mean that it wants to inhabit a big bang state but is prevented by its own rapid expansion – it is technically a frustrated ground state (which is not unknown, see e.g. physics of solid state magnets).

      • Oh, boy. Another flat-spacer. If space is flat, why do we see the sails of spaceships on the horizon before the entire ship?

        • Torbjörn Larsson | December 30, 2020 at 6:40 am | Reply

          Because [insert conspiracy theory here].

          But if you are curious, the Planck cosmic background survey collaboration did center the curvature to zero for the first time 2018 – it had been going down as the measurements improved – and reported that in their cosmological summary paper [Planck legacy Archive]. The eBOSS galaxy survey collaboration confirmed that in their own 20 year cosmological summary paper [arxiv, to be published].

  9. There was no Big Bang. What is the proof? Red Shifting? The light from distant galaxies travels to us through uncounted gravity fields, gas clouds, dust, and various other physical influences. The further away its source, the more it is influenced by these factors, causing apparent “red shifting” which had been interpreted as an expanding universe. And using backward reasoning, it has expanded from a singularity. Nonsense. The other proof is Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation. Not valid. “CMB” is just the homogeneous sound soup of explosions, implosions, collisions, fusions, fissions, etc that have been going on infinitely. No proof – no big bang.
    God cannot make a decision because there is no point in time for an infinite being. There is no discrete, finite universe, a bubble caused by a big bang at some point in time. What is has always been, and always will be, in one form or another. Energy to matter; matter to energy. There is an infinite Cosmos.

  10. Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 4:36 am | Reply

    In the last few years there have been a series of similar discoveries of the earlier missing 50 % of the 6 % – or 3 % – of the universe energy content which is baryonic matter. Recent examples includes using the newfound fast radio bursts:

    “Roughly half of the “normal” matter in the universe—the stuff that makes up stars, planets, and even us—exists as mere wisps of material floating in intergalactic space, according to cosmologists. But astronomers had no good way to confirm that, until now. A new study has used fast radio bursts (FRBs)—powerful millisecondslong pulses of radio waves coming from distant galaxies—to weigh intergalactic matter, and the results match up with predictions.”

    [ ]

    But seeing the wispy gas from emissions gives more detail.

  11. Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 4:37 am | Reply

    “But seeing the wispy gas from emissions gives more detail.”

    Having said that the article rubs me the wrong way regarding cosmology. I don’t think that the standard model of particles has any way to predict how much of the universe will be matter, that is a task for the cosmic background spectra that tells us the various amounts by type [ “Secrets of the Cosmic Microwave Background” @ PBS Space Time. ].

    More precisely it is a part of the inflationary variants of the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter cosmologies that makes up modern cosmology. And they now describe the order of events differently, as inflationary hot big bang cosmology.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 4:40 am | Reply

      Please disregard that comment, it was meant in response to a similar article. I’ll put the intended comment later instead.

  12. Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 4:50 am | Reply

    “But seeing the wispy gas from emissions gives more detail.”

    Having said that the article rubs me the wrong way regarding cosmology. It describes a Big Bang singularity physics, which is a cosmology 40 years out of date. The universe is too homogeneous and isotropic to have been a result of a pre-big bang “explosion” but also of a big bang “singularity” which both would have give non-uniformities of the order of the energies involved [“O(1)”]. But the cosmic background radiation show such non-uniformities are 100,000 times lower than that [“O(10^-5)”]. This ushered in the discovery of inflation – modern cosmology is the inflationary variants of the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter cosmologies. And they now describe the order of events differently, as inflationary hot big bang cosmology.

    “Among most people who study the early Universe, inflation is accepted as the new consensus theory. We might not know everything there is to know about inflation, but either it — or something so similar to it that we don’t have an observation to tell them apart — must have happened.

    With all that said, what does that mean for our cosmic origins? From a timeline perspective, what comes first: the Big Bang or inflation?

    Believe it or not, the above graph contains all the information you’d need to know for certain. Two of the curves — red and blue — represent a Universe dominated by either matter or radiation. As you can clearly see, if you extrapolate them back arbitrarily to the past, you get an inifinitely [sic] small size at a finite time of t=0, which is a singularity.

    But if at some early time, the Universe isn’t dominated by matter or radiation, but by a form of energy inherent to space itself, you get the yellow curve. Note how this yellow curve, since it’s an exponential curve, never reaches zero in size, but only approaches it, even if you go infinitely far back in time. An inflating Universe doesn’t begin in a singularity like a matter-dominated or radiation-dominated Universe does. All we can state with certainty is that the state we call the hot Big Bang only came about after the end of inflation. It says nothing about inflation’s origins.”

    “There are a lot of people who mean “the initial singularity” when they say “the Big Bang,” and to those people, I say it’s long past due for you to get with the times. The hot Big Bang cannot be extrapolated back to a singularity, but only to the end of an inflationary state that preceded it. We cannot state with any confidence, because there are no signatures of it even in principle, what preceded the very end-stages of inflation. Was there a singularity? Maybe, but even if so, it doesn’t have anything to do with the Big Bang.

    Inflation came first, and its end heralded the arrival of the Big Bang. There are still those who disagree, but they’re now nearly a full 40 years out of date.”

    [ ]

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 28, 2020 at 4:54 am | Reply

      That was more apt as response for this article.

      A video that shows the nut of modern cosmology – scripted by a mainstream astrophysicist – can be found here: . “The Big Bang is Probably Not What You Think It Is” @ Domain Of Science.

      • Shane Stevenson | December 28, 2020 at 7:05 am | Reply

        Thanks for all your explanations, sincerely. Don’t let the fairy tale folks bother you too much.

        • Torbjörn Larsson | December 30, 2020 at 6:46 am | Reply

          Thank you!

          No, I’m not too bothered after 2018, since it shows the universe is entirely a result of a natural process. It is ironic that a potentially infinite universe can be constrained as if it was a thermodynamic closed systems (which it is theoretically but now also observationally) but there you go. I stopped labeling myself on the theistic scale (“atheist”) and just call myself secular observer.

          I haven’t met a superstitious that agree their magic works inside closed containers for a very long time. But it may take a while before they give this one up. 😀

  13. Walter Dean Belcher | December 28, 2020 at 6:20 am | Reply

    Big Bang or God.
    God or the Alpha and Omega, did this being always exist? How would an infinite being create the universe? If poken into existence is the belief then what is the definition of ‘spoken’? Who gives this word it’s meaning?
    If science shows the creation of the universe through a ‘big bang’, ‘expansion’ or really any other theory from our minds does that mean there is no God?
    Who gives these words their meaning?
    Why do we struggle to find the reason or source of our creation? Why do we argue one is wrong and the other is superstition?
    So many questions that are answered by theories with added ‘proof’ or ‘faith’ that is generated by the human thought process so often found to be erroneous.
    The facts are there are no facts unless you accept connected theories as factual. That is just erroneous human thought.
    Maybe it was a Big Bang that started the Universe and maybe it was caused by an Infinte Being who said “Let there be Light”. The facts are there are zero facts that can deny such an occurrence did not happen because we are infinitely ignorant still. Even after thousands of years of Science and Beliefs.
    No person knows and it is the height of human huberiesce to say otherwise.

  14. As I told you big bang time line was wrong as I told you it was all gas as I told you blacksphere’s created you and me and the galaxies and planets. As I told all of you more than a year ago several years ago. Once a blacksphere is created it pulls everything that was created in that process back to itself look at the images*nd I never seen any image it makes the most sense. No big bang. Lots of small bangs all over the universe (small in comparison to the whole universe), the only question really is where did the primordial gas come from?

  15. Great article just watched an old how the uni works. And the one cosmologist says think of the universe as a rubber mat and the farther away the faster you (expansion). Well we know that’s not the case or we would be moving away faster than light. Everything they were sayin sounded like the start of the uni started here. Ok the farthest galaxie we can see is moving at the same speed we are our galaxie is. It’s just really far away. All the same processes we observe here are happening there so from their point of view we’re moving at the speed of light it has to be the same so what’s happening between these two galaxies that imply the speed difference. I believe it’s the same process that’s happening right here in our galaxie. When we peer into the center of our galaxie it looks like things are moving much fast but in reality their moving at the same speed it’s a matter of distance and perspective. So maybe we’re farther from the center of our observable univers than they are and therefore it just appears that their moving faster when in reality we’re moving exactly the same speed. This kinda hurts the expansion arguments but might just be a fact. Why should we think it’s different there than here we shouldn’t until it’s proven to be different we should accept that it’s the same. And even if space was expanding why would we think that has an effect on galaxies because it would not obviously or nothing would be visible it would be gone already. So in retrospect whats happening is blacksphere’s are clearing the gas which in turn let’s us observe. And I also think lensing effects what we are observing even at great distances and might be the grand illusion.

  16. Blacksphere’s / Ok so the bigger the blacksphere the older it is the very first blacksphere must have been so big considering the amount of gas that was available to it. The smaller the blacksphere the younger it must be as not as much gas was left right makes sense. So when they say big bang I think of the first blacksphere. And how big it must be by now and perhaps that’s why space appears to be black as it takes up our entire horizon. ( Just a thought but could we be in a arm of this blacksphere and that’s why we can’t see it and why our horizon is black. Are we part of a really really really big mother galaxie and and the galaxies we can observe are part of the debris from our first blacksphere’s creation in our part of the universe. Seems like a reasonable explanation. We know that the gases out there in space are being pulled and not pushed. When you push on something you get a flat wall but when you pull it’s gradual and there’s no wall. So all the gases and matter are being pulled not falling not pushed not gravity but pulled. Look at the image and you can see what I’m saying. Lots more to say but time is the thing and I’m out of it for now. Like I said great article. p.S maybe we can travel to distant stars faster than we think we just haven’t realized the process yet?

  17. @ Torbjörn Larsson
    Thank you for your many lucid explanations in the various “publications” I read over the last few years.

    You’re doing God’s work… Oh, wait…

    Keep up the great work.

  18. There’s no proof either way. Many proven and tested theories ended up in the dumpster because a new and more accurate test proved it wrong. When you say something is proven, that only means it’s proven based on our current understanding of the universe and tools we have available right now.

    And for those people who believe in God or whatever, I can’t think of a good reason why would it create this unimaginably large universe? It could of just created our solar system, or if it feels creative, our galaxy and call it good enough. Yeah, I know, my tiny human brain is not capable of understanding it’s thought process. I call bulls*#@. Both scientists and believers just making up stuff.

  19. Maybe all these hot gases, rather than human activity, are causing “Global Warming.”

  20. So Engel boy what’s your explaination?

    Full of nay saying but with nothing to offer.

    A Book offering an explanation from 3000 or 4000 years ago that sounds very similar in reality to the Big Bang Theory is a lot more convincing than empty statements are from some cretin.

  21. Torbjörn Larsson I disagree with you. Your claimed facts are in fact guesses. Theories.

    No human knows all the facts otherwise we could already travel to distant stars. I’d like to be doing that myself.

    I’m happy to believe in a God created state of matter. You don’t have to. I won’t put you down for thinking differently to me.

    God believer or not my mind isn’t as small as yours. Perhaps one day you will get over yourself and become more human?

    I don’t pretend to know all the answers myself. When much younger I believed that all the secrets were available to me from scientific observation.

    Other things became more important to me. I lived, loved and found joy.

    Even though I have a thirst for knowledge if I don’t find out before I die then I still don’t mind since I will have eternity for God to teach me.

    That’s good enough for me.

  22. A bit off subject.. but is it at all possible that the covid epidemic is due to us traveling through a portion of one of the denser molecular clouds in this portion of the milky way? Similar instances have been linked to mass extinctions in the past

  23. I’m with Ed Scott…how arrogant to assume we can/ could nail down the creation of the Universe.

  24. It’s a plasma universe. Gravity isn’t the dominant force here. There is no evidence for dark matter other than it being a necessity for the gravity dominant model to work. Simulations with parameters that aren’t based on reality make them a useless tool to attempt to uncover reality. Likewise for elaborate mathematical models. If you’re good enough at maths you can insert parameters that work out mathematically and then go and look for some physical representation of the fudge in the equations. That may have its uses however if simulations with no fudge can be made and explain galaxy rotation etc then they should be considered. Anthony peratt and others have covered this. In terms of dark energy if it appears that fragments of some explosion speed up the further they get from the source (defying the conservation of energy at first glance) then you would first ask if the model is wrong. SED physicists have covered the fact that the quantized redshift points to fundamental changes in the ZPE overtime. Guthrie and napier attempted to disprove tifft but ended up agreeing. Tifft did a follow up also. Quantization through Galaxies and no visible disruption is indicative that redshift and its quantization isn’t necessarily about velocity but an underlying quantum effect. Explained by sed physicists and a real zpe. Furthermore an actual origin for gravity and GR effects such as ‘gravitational lensing’ are accounted for with a real ZPE and proper treatment of plasma minus some mainstream misguidance. Eg forgetting that magnetic fields are closed paths and that magnetic fields and electric fields coexist. Furthermore a real ZPE explains the uncertainty principle and the causality fundamentally of all quantum phenomena. That doesn’t mean the purely mathematical approaches aren’t useful but they are provably suspect and at this point strong alternatives that tick every box exist. Also the pure maths approaches if accepted as a true representation of reality have resulted in physics pursuing deadends. Also the real ZPE of SED physics explains quantum fluctuations and their causal mechanism. The ZPE is intrinsic to space itself. Therefore quantum fluctuations can’t have initiated the beginning of the universe. But we know it had A beginning. From there on strong alternative arguments explain all the science. The mainstream will never accept it though because it undermines their authority to have to accept the position of dedicated amateur astronomers, physicists and electrical engineers. Plus the research money would cease. University departments could no longer be given 4.5 million to pull the plug on a bath and say they can model black holes from it. They’d have to find alternative employment. The constant mystery means scifi docs and books can keep being made that people will buy and the decades of dogma can’t be overturned as collective public faith in ‘scientists’ would be undermined. A few PhD astronphysicists with long greasy ponytails and no children may write articles supposedly attacking the plasma universe etc but they are probably incorrect in doing so. Nothing wrong with respectful debate but personal attacks and stifling debate and blocking publication in the mainstream of alternative ideas is pathetic. Let everyone publish and openly debate collectively. This applies in other fields for the same reason. Geology, biology, etc

  25. No hot big bang the early universe would have been freezing cold and the gas would have been in snow form. Gas balls is the answer.

  26. So the universe’s expansion is speeding up humm? Are we sure or is the the speed of the universe speeding up? So it would really make a lot of sense that everything would speed up as the more matter that’s being used up by the blacksphere’s in the center of all the galaxies would lighten the load. So if the universe had a constant speed and all the galaxies moved according to that constant as they use up their matter they would inevitably become lighter we might not see it directly because of the clouds of stuff in the galaxies so they wouldn’t appear to change much but in fact every second of everyday their using matter as fuel so the weight of said galaxies would in fact become lighter and in doing that they would move at a faster pace through the universe. In doing that it would give the illusion of expanding faster when the reality is their just lighter and are being moved faster as that process takes place to the constant speed of the universe. That makes a whole lot of sense. I think I just solved the sped up expansion theory. Less mass the faster they go. Thanks and don’t forget the name.

  27. The more I thought about it the more sense it made. So the cosmic constant was correct it’s not moving faster the galaxies themselves are the cause their losing weight and in doing that they would naturally speed up as the constant doesn’t change I think I’m right on the money here folks. Think about the web that all these galaxies are on well those webs are actually cosmic highways. So the less mass the faster they go it’s that simple. And when galaxies collide it’s just a matter of being on the same highway but moving at different speeds. Can we test to see if galaxies are moving at different speeds I am pritty sure they all move at different speeds according to their mass against the cosmic constant WOW.

  28. I’m just wondering if the weight of the galaxies or mass is put into the simulations you run to try and come up with ur theories. Every nova takes weight away from the parent. There’s a direct loss of mass in every scenario that has to effect the movement speed of the galaxies against the constant it absolutely has too. That effects everything the red shift everything it must and maybe that’s why you always get different out comes when u try and measure the expansion. Maybe it’s not expanding maybe things are just catching up to the constant that’s already there.

  29. I am very very good.

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.