I have plans on writing a criticism of alternative models of the universe (and I'm redoing an old book review of on Eric Lerner's book on Amazon that I wrote back when I didn't know any better and was anti-BBT), and I needed a bit of info about the existence of superclusters and their supposedly negative implications for the Big Bang (as described by Lerner).

First off, do the large-scale structures discovered by Brent Tully really (see http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~tully/) really exist?

Second, if they do, then given our present models of the universe where Ω=~0.3 and Λ=~0.7, how do we explain how they formed over the last 13.7 billion years? I read over Ned Wright's criticisms of Lerner, but it seems to have been written before the discovery of dark energy.

If someone can explain this or provide some links, It'd help me out a lot. Thanks.

P.S.: Sorry if I didn't explain things coherently. It's almost 7 AM where I live.

__________________
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins

First off, filaments do really exist, they are conglomerates of galaxy clusters and galaxy groups

With respect to how they formed, the current accepted theory of large scale structure is called the Bottom-up scenario, in which firstly there is formation of stars, then formation of galaxies, then clusters, then filaments,... The competing theory, but old-fashioned is the Top-down scenario, with formation occurring in inverse order

cyrek reply

Zero
The actual observed and which I consider real matter is the stars, planets, minor bodies and gases scattered throughout the universe.
This adds up to just 1 to 2 percent of Omega to portray the universe to be flat which it is.

This real mass content would take hundreds of billions of years to form the giagantic structures we see. This according to one mathmatician who I recall is Anthony Peratt?

The dark matter does not exist. That is why it cannot be seen.

The dark energy only complicates the Omega problem because it contributes to the questionable expansion.

You will have to fabricate a lot of new concepts to save the BB.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Not really, just change the nature of the Bang where the Universe forms from the top down and current non-inflationary explaination of expansion, and the BB overcomes many of its short comings. However, the time line and nature of mass developement would have to be revisited.

bigsplit, why do you prefer the top-down scenario? Is a model with problems, do you know?

Discovery of dark matter?
hahahaha
all dark matter is is an imaginary construct to make some math work.
at least thats my opinion.
I mean look at it.
we dont know why this does this or why that does that oh must be this new dark matter that no one can even prove if it exists.
no couldnt be our math.

__________________
"I'm a visionary, I'm ahead of my time...
...problem is i'm only about 30 seconds ahead."
George Carlin

Well, it worked with the neutrino. It was a strange, undetectable, particle that was needed to explain the energy spectrum in beta decay, i.e. make the math work. Physicists had to wait ~20 years before this mythical beast was actually detected. Now, of course, it is sufficiently real that we can identify three types, and show that it has mass.

Simple.

Take a bunch of magnets into space. Energize them (mechanically) by vibrating the walls of the room until no magnet can stick to any other.

Then, remove the walls of the room and let them fly.

Wait.

As the coefficient of restitution and subsequent collisions steadily reduce velocities, you'll find that some magnets, then more and more, stick together, forming your superclusters.

If we'd not removed the walls of the room, all the magnets would have eventually found their way to form one big cluster. Without the walls, however, there will be more clusters, of fewer magnets.

I prefer top down because I prefer to think of the Universe as a closed system that was once homogeniously distributed mass prior to the Big Bang. The mass inside this closed system with a fixed area began to condense through electromagnetism followed by the other forces. The initial vorticies were very large and as they began to compact matter they began to heat up and the bottom (quantum) began evolving. The initial meta vorticies are the structures of our galaxy and galaxy clusters and came first. This is a bit confusing because the homogeniously distributed mass first had to decay, which was a quatum process that began the initial electrodynamics that started the meta vorticies.

So actually I guess what I prefer is the bottom breaks and things began to advance from the top down.

I believe in Big Bang, but not with Singularity, Vacuum Energy and accidentally Inflation of the space. The eternal energy in eternal space have been concentrated 13 billions years ago and the galaxies, quasars black holes were created almost immediately in large space.
They do maintain in naïve inflation theory the inflation was quicker then the speed of light. How do we see the Background Radiation then if it goes outward only? Last observations shows us the Universe is flat and open.
The Dark Energy accelerates Universe in normal inflation of the Universe. It is possible.
Did you think about neutrino? It is just different then the electromagnetic energy.
I have the paper for discuss – http://bencieszyn.w.interia.pl/antimatter