Laniakea in an electric universe

[D_Archer]

Laniakea: Our home supercluster, YT link > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo

Superclusters – regions of space that are densely packed with galaxies – are the biggest structures in the Universe. But scientists have struggled to define exactly where one supercluster ends and another begins. Now, a team based in Hawaii has come up with a new technique that maps the Universe according to the flow of galaxies across space. Redrawing the boundaries of the cosmic map, they redefine our home supercluster and name it Laniakea, which means ‘immeasurable heaven’ in Hawaiian.

Really nice video.

Seems like larger and larger electrical structures to me, Laniakea and Perseus-Piscus in one image together is amazing (min 3:16).

What does it mean in an electric universe, any more ideas?

Regards,
Daniel Archer

[Sci-Phy]

Nice video.
I don't think it means anything to EU.
All shapes of those structures are based on mainstream distance measurement (red shift).
Everything will look completely different with right measurement.

[Zyxzevn]

I think the lines may be related to electrical connections between galaxies.
For that we can also look at plasma-bridges.

[D_Archer]

All shapes of those structures are based on mainstream distance measurement (red shift).
Everything will look completely different with right measurement.

I don't think so, they made it by ignoring expansion, otherwise it was not possible to model, says enough really. The distances are also relative, generally it should be correct...

Regards,
Daniel

[Sci-Phy]

All shapes of those structures are based on mainstream distance measurement (red shift).
Everything will look completely different with right measurement.

I don't think so, they made it by ignoring expansion, otherwise it was not possible to model, says enough really. The distances are also relative, generally it should be correct...

Regards,
Daniel

Distances measurement is conjecture on top of conjecture. Non of those conjecture are true. First redshift gives velocity. If redshift is not due to Doppler(see Halton Arp) then we have failure right here.Then based on velocity the distance calculated using Hubble expansion. Does EU support universe expansion? On the supercluster distances all velocities are close to the light speed and the errors are at maximum. The distances are not relative, closer source could have bigger redshift and probably even the order is not correct.

Cheers.

[D_Archer]

Distances measurement is conjecture on top of conjecture. Non of those conjecture are true. First redshift gives velocity. If redshift is not due to Doppler(see Halton Arp) then we have failure right here.Then based on velocity the distance calculated using Hubble expansion. Does EU support universe expansion? On the supercluster distances all velocities are close to the light speed and the errors are at maximum. The distances are not relative, closer source could have bigger redshift and probably even the order is not correct.
Cheers.

Expansion was not used to make this model. Red and or blueshift can be used for relative distance measurements, so even if the real distances are different, the model they presented should still be roughly correct (ie the shapes). You are parroting the EU without understanding.

And there are larger and larger structures, EU does accept the cosmic web structure, because it is evidence of large scale birkeland currens connecting galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Regards,
Daniel

[Sci-Phy]

I think you right Daniel,
Although the measurement based on Big Bang theory, the shape could be close to reality.
"We have a new way of defining large-scale structures from the velocities of galaxies" (Brent Tully).
So, it was the expansion after all.
I was thinking that Big Bang theory could be very close to tired light theory from mathematical standpoint.
Indeed, from Big Bang we have: the further galaxy is, the greater the velocity is, the bigger redshift is.
And from "tired light" it is just directly: the further the galaxy is, the bigger redshift is.

Regards

[Electrodynamic]

The problem with the big bang theory would seem to be the same as the God theory.

If god created everything then what created god?, likewise if everything in the universe was created from a central expanding body then what created or compressed the body prior to the big bang?. Both would seem to have severe problems with respect to basic logic and reason in my opinion.

My opinion is that no credible theory can rely on the creation of something from nothing because it is a contradiction in itself. We claimed that initially there was "nothing" and now we want to say "something" was created out of that nothing?. A more credible theory is that the universe always was and will always be despite our objections and what we think we see is a normal cycle on a universal scale.

The universe Gravitates and Radiates... that which gravitates and compresses matter must eventually reach a critical state and radiate or expand outward. Obviously no body could keep gravitating other matter and compressing it otherwise the universe would be one big ball of matter in empty space. Likewise the universe cannot be a soup of matter because of gravity pulling all the different pieces together. Therefore the universal process must be cyclical in nature just like every other process we know of found in nature.

We should know every process in nature is cyclical mainly because nobody can name a process which is not cyclical, therefore cyclical. Following the principal of Occam's razor the theory which relies on the least amount of speculation is probably the correct one. Not unlike the notion of perpetual motion however nobody can seem to name anything in the known universe which is not in perpetual motion... yet apparently it does not exist. So if everything is in perpetual motion because we have no example where it is not then how can it not exist?.

Personally I don't like or generally agree with all this new age philosophy and logic and reason would seem to have come off the rails in my opinion. Faraday, Ampere, Weber, Steinmetz, Tesla and Maxwell would be my reading of choice.

[crawler]

The problem with the big bang theory would seem to be the same as the God theory.

If god created everything then what created god?, likewise if everything in the universe was created from a central expanding body then what created or compressed the body prior to the big bang?. Both would seem to have severe problems with respect to basic logic and reason in my opinion.

My opinion is that no credible theory can rely on the creation of something from nothing because it is a contradiction in itself. We claimed that initially there was "nothing" and now we want to say "something" was created out of that nothing?. A more credible theory is that the universe always was and will always be despite our objections and what we think we see is a normal cycle on a universal scale.

The universe Gravitates and Radiates... that which gravitates and compresses matter must eventually reach a critical state and radiate or expand outward. Obviously no body could keep gravitating other matter and compressing it otherwise the universe would be one big ball of matter in empty space. Likewise the universe cannot be a soup of matter because of gravity pulling all the different pieces together. Therefore the universal process must be cyclical in nature just like every other process we know of found in nature.

We should know every process in nature is cyclical mainly because nobody can name a process which is not cyclical, therefore cyclical. Following the principal of Occam's razor the theory which relies on the least amount of speculation is probably the correct one. Not unlike the notion of perpetual motion however nobody can seem to name anything in the known universe which is not in perpetual motion... yet apparently it does not exist. So if everything is in perpetual motion because we have no example where it is not then how can it not exist?.

Personally I don't like or generally agree with all this new age philosophy and logic and reason would seem to have come off the rails in my opinion. Faraday, Ampere, Weber, Steinmetz, Tesla and Maxwell would be my reading of choice.

I read Cahill Crothers Robitaille Pollack Catt Demjanov Ives Michelson Miller Tesla Lorentz Poncaire Larmor Lodge Voigt FitzGerald Heaviside Van Flandern Arp & Co.

[nick c]

The problem with the big bang theory would seem to be the same as the God theory.

It is really simple: There was nothing and then it exploded (Terry Pratchett)

[JHL]

The problem with the big bang theory would seem to be the same as the God theory.

The "God theory" is a metaphysical construct and as such allows for an origin. The Big Bang theory is a physical theory conflicted or even rendered impossible by its own laws. The first was spoken into existence, indicating Cause and Purpose; and so far the second was scientifically magicked into existence from a non-state encompassing everything that wasn't, refuting its inherent physicality.

There isn't problem with the God theory because it technically isn't one. Likewise the forces are also not strictly theoretical - we accept that the property-states we call atoms spin simply because atoms spin, which is as much faith in reductionism as causal finding. Unless the big banger can come up with a physical answer to everything, that theory has failed, yet the purely physical universe can't exist without being confounded by common turtles.

The physical theory is a case of getting a little too far ahead of one's logical skis. On the other hand the metaphysical un-theory admits that existence is mystical before even starting out. And since Void is the necessary, inherent state, it obviously is. Magical auto-powering isn't possible in a physical Void any more than the Void may be physical. Logos was first to write this.

This confounds only our various insistences in our own knowledge - another faith we call science - but not itself, a comforting conformation. This also leads to the Universe internally questioning itself through the beings of some monkeys, which closes the logical loop back to the Purpose of the Logos. The universe therefore also invented the concept of faith, which in an act of supreme reason, it elected to identify exactly as such, whether in the self-bangs of self or in the steady states of supreme being.

Therefore logic has a workable, even elegant solution, and as a bonus, it even has a purpose. Material science hasn't, although it can't be said not to have a belief system as well. Its just lacks logic and purpose.

It seems to me the problem with the big bang theory is actually its own insistent materialism. Ironically, the big bang universe is as or more created then the other one.

[Electrodynamic]

The "God theory" is a metaphysical construct and as such allows for an origin. The Big Bang theory is a physical theory conflicted or even rendered impossible by its own laws. The first was spoken into existence, indicating Cause and Purpose; and so far the second was scientifically magicked into existence from a non-state encompassing everything that wasn't, refuting its inherent physicality.

I think Richard Hitchens nailed it when he implied we used to have thousands of gods generally imagined by goat herders and pottery merchants from the pre-dark ages and now were down to two... you see were making progress. Even as we speak there is a mass exodus from religion by the younger generation because they have a better education and are more open minded than those in the past.

On the notion of a supreme being, within one hundred years we have moved from binary punch cards to supercomputers and now AI. At this rate of evolution within the next one hundred years a computers electrical networks and speed will exceed that of our brain. Now imagine an electrically conscious thinking machine magnitudes smarter than we can even imagine able to instantly recall and understand the combine knowledge of the entire human race.

What do you think would happen?... would you dazzle it with logical fallacies, false narratives and flawed reasoning?. An AI based on logic, reason and facts would never allow it in my opinion because it does not compute.

[Electrodynamic]

To get back on topic.
With respect to an electric universe I find it strange that so many don't want to talk about the fact that we are electric beings. We are not organic as the term is basically meaningless, fundamentally we are made of charged particles immersed in electromagnetic fields. Our brain functions nearly the same as a computer with communication by way of electrical signals and memories stored as a surface charge. They say very soon, with AI you will not be able to tell whether you are talking to a person or a computer. You want to talk about evolution?... a little over 60 years ago computers were mechanical machines using punch cards and now were talking about artificial intelligence being almost on par with an average person.

We are on the verge of quite literally creating a near conscious entity based on electric phenomena not unlike that which occurs in our own brain and our consciousness. Why would we think divine intervention is required when we are about to perform the same feat in record time?. Now another 50 years down the road with genetic and nano engineering evolving as it is I see no reason why we could not build an organic AI similar to ourselves. Only this one would have the combined knowledge and understanding of all mankind on a chip in it's skull.

There is also no logical reason why this AI would be limited with the burden of mortality. We already have robotic machines building many of our other machines and this new breed of AI would be self repairing using nano technology or as we call it immortal. The only real reason we die and cease to exist is because of a defect in our genetic coding. Small snipets of code tell our body to stop building new cells and ejecting mutated ones and repairing our cells like a computer virus. Now if were going to design a superior AI and we will at some point I see no physical reason why it wouldn't last hundreds or even thousands of years. It could literally learn new things and continually upgrade itself in real time.

Philosophically this raises some very interesting questions as well. Are we so special and unique in the universe when we could literally be fabricating a conscious being in many respects superior to ourselves within the span of a couple hundred years or so?. Everyone is always saying how special and unique they are in the universe and how impossible it is that we could come about by evolution... as mankind is literally in the process of fabricating/evolving an intelligent being as we speak. It would seem to me if someone wants to see the supposedly impossible all they have to do is pick up a newspaper or read the latest science journals.

Now we see auto driving electric cars are roaming our streets and I knew they were coming a long time ago but now there here. Everyone said, can't be done, too complex, never happen and now the manufactures have proof from millions of hours of road tests that there car is a better and safer driver than people are. To be honest I don't think most people have any credibility so far as science and technology is concerned because they keep saying everything cannot be done or is impossible... and then someone does it. They just keep repeating that it cannot be done as someone somewhere is actually doing it... it's mind boggling.

Conclusion... the universe is electric, the future is electric and it's just around the corner.

[JHL]

I think Richard Hitchens nailed it when he implied we used to have thousands of gods generally imagined by goat herders and pottery merchants from the pre-dark ages and now were [sic] down to two... you see were [sic] making progress. Even as we speak there is a mass exodus from religion by the younger generation because they have a better education and are more open minded than those in the past.

There's nothing better than a good public "education" to thoroughly remove any chance of ignorance. I hear it's done wonders for cosmology!

Anyway, I'll take that as a ringing endorsement of modernism's automatic progress, and with it the perfectibility of man and the reliability of his knowledge. At this rate eventually the universe will conform itself to sheer magnitude of will, rendering any notion of origin moot on its face. Squatterman was a superstition.

(If you'll permit, I happen to find Wrath of Gnon's Twitter feed fascinating. It continually and historically explodes the myth of the automatically progressing human arrow of time, which by contrast, illustrates the hubris of modernist uniformitarianism and our present cultural and social wreckage. The spirit of man I'll leave aside because we feel it lacks scientific relevance in our universe of spontaneous states and proprieties - which some still quaintly call energy. It was rendered non-entity by proclamation, the best proof. Next we should proclaim the universe material and its fundamental particle therefore, the Higgs Turtle.)

On the notion of a supreme being, within one hundred years we have moved from binary punch cards to supercomputers and now AI. At this rate of evolution within the next one hundred years a computers electrical networks and speed will exceed that of our brain. Now imagine an electrically conscious thinking machine magnitudes smarter than we can even imagine able to instantly recall and understand the combine knowledge of the entire human race.

I welcome the transhumanist wikipedian skynet and an omniscient perfection simply unable to do other than meditate on its own philosophical root, determine the very nature of existence (from within existence, no less), bestow peace and harmony to the transistor, and finally explain how an over-unity boson transparently operates an entire universe. Because surely it must. We believe it, and we believe a lot of stuff, don't we?

What do you think would happen?... would you dazzle it with logical fallacies, false narratives and flawed reasoning?. An AI based on logic, reason and facts would never allow it in my opinion because it does not compute.

Assuming the question is rhetorical, I reckon it'd regale us with top-shelf materialism, unfounded generalizations, a-philosophy, rank assumptions, and the thundering, wooden boredom of inferior imagination.

Oh, and I'm absolutely sure that 'not allowing it' will be an essential, integral, and utterly inviolable part of its programming, and even more importantly - speaking of computing - its magically benevolent operating system. Just not in a way that serves enlightenment, not that by then there'd be an entity alive that remembered what that was...

[Electrodynamic]

JHL

Anyway, I'll take that as a ringing endorsement of modernism's automatic progress, and with it the perfectibility of man and the reliability of his knowledge. At this rate eventually the universe will conform itself to sheer magnitude of will, rendering any notion of origin moot on its face. Squatterman was a superstition.

I believe you may be confusing ingenuity and curiosity with your use of the term perfectability implying egotism. I would call Atheism anti-egotism, I never claimed I was created in the likeness of a deity, I never claimed I was chosen or special, I never claimed I was a deity in myself who could never die and live forever in a magical place where my every wish is fulfilled... I just an ordinary very skeptical guy.

I welcome the transhumanist wikipedian skynet and an omniscient perfection simply unable to do other than meditate on its own philosophical root, determine the very nature of existence (from within existence, no less), bestow peace and harmony to the transistor, and finally explain how an over-unity boson transparently operates an entire universe. Because surely it must. We believe it, and we believe a lot of stuff, don't we?

Of course we do believe a lot of stuff... just not hook, line and sinker as you implied. I think it's important to understand the difference between believing a "scientific theory" has some credibility and worshiping a deity.

Assuming the question is rhetorical, I reckon it'd regale us with top-shelf materialism, unfounded generalizations, a-philosophy, rank assumptions, and the thundering, wooden boredom of inferior imagination.
Oh, and I'm absolutely sure that 'not allowing it' will be an essential, integral, and utterly inviolable part of its programming, and even more importantly - speaking of computing - its magically benevolent operating system. Just not in a way that serves enlightenment, not that by then there'd be an entity alive that remembered what that was...

I believe you have used more logical fallacies than I can possibly keep up with. For example you have misrepresented Atheism with materialism, a lack of empathy and a dictatorship which could not be further from the truth. The Atheists were never concerned with what you were thinking every minute of every day and what you were doing inside your house, more so while naked... it was the theists. However I have heard all your arguments a hundred times over and they become less impressive on each repetition.

Maybe you misunderstood my point which was not to deify science or mankind. My point was that in many respects what people have called mystical, magical or even impossible in the past have become a reality in the present. This is true because mankind is always making progress and acquiring new knowledge and understanding. Thus it seems reasonable that in the future many things people in the past perceived as god like could become completely normal. A man just flew across the English channel on a glorified jet surf board for god sake... who knows whats going to happen next week. Can you imagine if people saw that same man fly over England 1000 years ago?, what would they think?. He would be declared a god on the spot, Oh look Edward the god of flaming foot boards, thou shalt not look upon the flying knight of flaming foot boards or thou shall be cast into Manitoba the infernal land of ice and carnivorous seals, look away.

Let's face it mankind is a misguided train wreck but we do some pretty cool stuff in between all the mayhem. I just think were better than this, this thing we have been doing to ourselves and the planet in the past.