A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION...Using "off the shelf science", the Double Vortex Dynamo uses the same physics to describe the cosmos as if of the same general physics used to describe medium sized astronomical objects, "medium size" here meaning medium compared to the cosmos even if they are some of the most high powered sources yet found other than the larger cosmos itself.
Click Here for the National Geographic page about the finding that the CMB seems to have two regular circles of more uniform field or see link at end of post.
In this idea involving both cosmology and cosmogony, + and - charges of jets of the high powered physics of jets of plasma, well proven by the Nobel prize winning work of Alfven, build separation of the charges by gravitation at the cosmic source of the observed outward cosmic Hubble constant. This is how the jets of galaxies are powered. By the same general physics of the long range forces of electromagnetism and gravity, while gravitation would power two giant cosmic jets, the other jet would be too distant for us to see. Usual jets of BL-Lacs, radio sources, and other explosions would be the same general physics on a more vast scale. From the expansion the jets would then meet as the cosmic disc like the electric and magnetic fields of the Earth except more polarized if the outflows of the cosmic jets would radiate by like charges, explaining the cosmos having more positive mass and matter than antimatter observed near us here. We would be at one of the cosmic jets of just predominantly one charge with the other jet with the other. The jets of the already observed high power sources such as radio sources would be of opposite charge, not the lighthouse such as pulsars which would be just one jet as it precesses around we see.
Since the positive jets would be more protons, and the opposite jets made of more electrons, by Newton's Law of motion, the protons would move slower and have a higher wavelength so the opposite outflow of both jets of the observed medium sized masses and of the cosmos would not be the same of the BL Lacs, radio sources, and so on, essentially because of the distinction between matter and antimatter, this is the same as the distinction between mass and energy too in my belief where mass is heavy and attracts to unify and energy is light and radiates out to many.
Matter and antimatter are not the same because if a hill dug were exactly the same as the room of a scoop of earth to make the hill, Truth would be the same and False and science would have never started by the two great opposites like mass and energy, or theory and evidence. If mass and energy were exactly the same as Einstein thought, they could be converted with higher efficiency so the sun would have converted its mass to energy fast instead of billions of years. They are unlike so unlike amounts of matter and energy in the cosmos in general are found. If there were more energy than mass the cosmos would have expanded out infinitely, and disappeared so energy conservation would be violated so more mass (gravity) would be found than energy. For more about Dirac's use of quantum mechanics prediction of equal amounts of matter and antimatter when combined with special relativity may be evidence against relativity, .CLICK HERE)
In my cosmology the higher speed expansion of the more distant cosmos observed would be caused by attraction of the opposite ions of the jets when they reach the disk. The Double Vortex theory would also explain the recent evidence from the
WMAP PROBE that shows the cosmos is quite regular on the most substantial scale yet seen; In the image it has two "sides" and halfway between them in the lower medium center is a round dot of perhaps half the area of the sides. The cosmic radiance outward would be explained by being the center of the jet (formerly thought to be the center of the cosmos) when we look toward it. The dot being offset to the top center of the Wilkinson image would be by way of the Double Vortex cosmos theory too, because the jet would be stretched from the cosmic zenith (at an obtuse angles to the cosmic disc) by attraction of the cosmic disc and much stronger power of the charges ionized well via the gravity of it. The opposite charges of the cosmic jet's attraction of the great cosmic wheel would power much of the acceleration of cosmic expansion observed so this would explain the higher speed motion outward without physics such as dark energy which has no proof as of August 2007. The basic problem of dark energy compared to the cosmic jet powered local expansion of the cosmos is that in using gravity as somewhat expansive it also allows the cosmos to leak out energy, and energy conservation, one of the the most well proven ideas in physics would be disproven. Another major problem of dark energy is that if there are slight amounts of loss of power of the long range forces, there would be slight changes in all the orbits of all the planets with a small change in the density of the field not otherwise seen and there are no experiments to prove anything like this.
With the cosmic jet cosmology when the cosmic jet would expand like a cone shaped fountain with the Earth and us somewhere near the top of the fountain, as the jet would fall to the cosmic disc after the expansion it could again accelerate like it's seen as the opposite charges of jets would move to the disc. In order for the cosmos not to leak, the relative asymmetry on both sides may not be huge, this would be why the acceleration as found is so small. It would be locally enough to combine the electric charges efficiently but not enough to cause too much expansion when they combine. The idea of dark energy is not needed in the cosmic jet cosmology because the only long range forces observed are the attraction of mass and the often expansive electromagnetism, and these two forces would explain all we see except for the power source of the cosmos which may be a fifth and sixth force or higher action reaction pairs of forces predicted by Newton's Third Law (forces come in pairs) with the gravity acceleration the motive power of these forces and all there is so the cosmos won't wind down over infinite time.
Evidence for the fifth and sixth force are that the radiation of common jets of galaxies is escaping the black holes inward motion of the speed of light at least, yet its moving outward in a way relativity says is improbable, and for this reason of mass is spinning energy as I believe, the fifth and sixth force would also be spinning faster than light inside the singularity to withstand the radiance inward as Einstein hoped to disprove. And the anomalies of the spectra of the jets don't fit the standard methods used in the standard symmetries eg. relativity, isospin, transformational, and so on. If one is changed, all the others would be, and so relativity may fail here because of this.
Recent evidence from the LHC seems to show the possibility of a blip at higher energy not predicted by Standard physics, and if proven, this or more forces like it might be superfusion, solving Einstein's disbelief in the singularity since the stronger force could stand up to gravity inside the supermassive gravity and not violate energy conservation. (Click here or see link at the end of this page.) Physicists have believed about the number of forces there's no reason to believe they're limited, so if the new LHC force turns out to be proven it may not be strong enough itself to reradiate inside the black hole. It might only be a mediating force to the stronger force inside that could resolve Einstein's objection to black holes existing.
If the opposite charges being much stronger than gravity were the power source of the QSO's, and the galaxies of a cosmic positive charged jet would have more positive charges and the negative charged jet the opposite charges attracts, this theory also predicts the most distant sources of the medium sized jets we see with QSO's might be moving towards each other faster than gravity alone would allow. These medium power masses would have braking radiation and lining up with the much stronger (electromagnetic) field than gravity not otherwise seen by any other explanation where the fields would align and were at random before the collision.
Astronomers may have found a huge horde of QSO's in the realm where the + and - charges would meet, it would indeed take a huge number of radiant power sources to "lighten up" the mass and allow the gravity of the cosmic inward wheel to take over and rewind up the cosmos where it had rundown locally as the jets would expand so that energy and mass would be conserved. Originally I believed the disk had not yet been observed perhaps either because it's too far distant and or the shear force of the flow of the cosmic cone would refract the light from us. However, the second type of WMAP images also show a cosmic equator, and this would be the evidence for the disc.
The WMAP shows symmetric sides of the cosmos where the cosmic jet we are moving inside would be. We would be looking down the tube in perspective and the heat would be another shade and more in perspective and more right and left than if we were at higher up above the disk of the cosmos where the sides would be more like a round wheel in geometry. If the sides are moving more to us, the red shift of the sides may be higher than at right angles to to our general motion. The central jet will have more of the fraction of the total mass of the realm of expansion where we are just as a river flows most fast about the central area. I think Lerner's explanation of The Uniform Cosmic Background Field of is of worth (An Alternative To the Standard Explanation). By the Wilkinson evidence the cosmos would definitely be not the same in all directions. So if there is radiation from the cosmic jets, the random motion of our the electric field of the Milky Way would be necessary to make the radiation seem the same.
The radiance of the Big Bang was believed to be proof of the low power Radiation which was found to be at "just the right predicted energy" but this may be coincidence. Perhaps the radiation seen isn't from the Big Bang. I believe there can be no definite energy predicted from anything infinite like the "Big Bang". If some energy is predicted from the Big Bang for the background field, there would be no reason to not "predict more" with a higher ratio of the mass to outward flow of the field. Vortex Cosmology would be able to predict a nonisotropic CMB of the right magnitude by way of the renormalization of the cosmological physics, not the Big bang. The CMB being coincidence is what CJC predicts to fit the contours of what by the evidence is now proven to be the unsymmetrical mass of the cosmos. If jets are indeed the cause of the Hubble expansion and they are powered by internal electrostatic expansion of like charges, the expansion is not like a sphere. It would be more like a cone of more and more motion with the outward expansion moving toward the cosmic belt seen by WMAP.. So if most of the mass of the cone were near the middle if we look out at right angles to our motion, if the expansion is more nonlinear, and the CJC
predicts reduced expansion at right angles than the sphere of the Big Bang. With us in the center of the jet, there would be spin all the 360 degrees around our line of motion too, not a prediction of the Big Bang.
..Jets may flow like a stream with laminar flow, in layers. The inside flows the fastest like the flow of waves in a river, and the mass might be in layers. The layers if like the ocean or a stream would be definite, so cosmic jet cosmology may predict this effect where on one side of the layer a relatively higher or lower speed may be found and the overall shape of the cone or trumpet shaped layers. The electromagnetic field and gravitation are the only two long range fields known so there has to be some looseness of the force because gravity may not be strong and the slow speed of light makes the electromagnetic field more loose. So the jets can bend down like a tree pulled down to meet the earth from the top if the branch bends well. Our cosmic jet would be pulled down like the branch to reach the cosmic dish via attraction of the opposite charges of the cosmic jet and disc. If the jet didn't connect the inflow of the cosmos, the energy would be spewing out of the cosmos, and this would violate energy conservation, so the necessity of the jet being pulled down by attraction to reach the inflow would explain the cosmic asymmetry seen by the WMAP images, and how the expansion is accelerating by more and more attraction, while saving energy conservation of unbalanced infinite Big Bang power. All the mass energy of the cosmos would go in balanced continuous loops, existing forever in time with energy neither created or destroyed. Energy Conservation (not the Big Bang) is the most well proven method in science. The cosmos would have spin like most of the mass of our usual life, and more. If the universe like subatomic particles is of high power so may be cosmic angular momentum. The Earth's location would tend to be in the center of one of the jets by the usual common luck like how the heliocentric method and other science has tended to make our evidence for being special-more common! The spin of this cone at the 90 degree sideways angle to its outward direction of motion would be from the math of angular momentum, the more speed the less spin relative to an observer more at rest relative to the center of the cosmos [this would be more at rest by way of gravitation just as the earth is more at rest than the moon and the sun is more at rest than the earth, one of my basic disproofs of (general )relativity, relativity has no explanation for rest mass. See link at bottom for more].
In the Double Vortex motif it's determined from the mass, speed, and how much spin it had at the start of its masses motion, continuously expanding by the continual power of the gravity eternally winding up the cosmos so it won't run down over infinite time of matter neither being created or destroyed. The main reason the jets have not been directly known other than by the new images of the cosmos may be because the volume may be large seen from our vantage. Structures like the Great Wall, and the huge bubble sheets of galaxies seen at other angles, are definitely not predicted from a simple spherical expansion like the Big Bang with the speed of light the top speed, because calculations show they wouldn't have had time to form with the given strength of gravity in the time since the Big Bang, as Lerner says in "The Big Bang Never Happened". This is not impossible in the Big Bang if it's assumed that the speed of light is not the top speed of the force of gravity.
While I believe the LIGO may have found the speed of inertia not gravity since Mach and Einstein believed gravity and inertia were the same thing as I say here, it still may measure the speed of inertia and like centrifugal force it doesn't shield, so LIGO may help us see the center of the cosmos. If my general cosmic explanation is correct, we'll be able to see the giant central continuous power source of the cosmic events, and see the source of the jets and the other jet out of sight to the common methods used these days.
Click Here For The BBC science page about the WMAP observations also. NOTE; I originally credited this evidence, but more recent images like by the Planck and other interpretations of the WMAP data may contradict this because many believe the WMAP has anamolies, first the sphere Tegmark and others were considering may have been an anamoly of the machine (I read elsewhere there are two of the circles and they show up in opposite zones of the heavans in the images, a creation of the machine and the cosmic equator was merely the dust plane of our own Milky Way.) If so I resolve to get my evidence no more even from the BBC or National Gregraphic and instead from other more reliable sources. On the other hand, it's possible CJC cosmology may be so if the evidence is of worth, so instead of just removing this post as I had since I found out about this cosmic change of the machines, now I see it now I don't, here I list my CJ Cosmology method since it may also solve other problems like where the Big Bang was from, to save energy conservation, cosmic acceleration, and more!
For more about faster than light wave motion possibilities without disproof of relativity, Click Here.
Here's the New Scientist site about the blip in the LHC that may be evidence for what I have named superfusion and a fifth or more forces that may save energy conservation by allowing the black hole not to radiate inward to nothing (Einstein's dilemma).
Click here for the National Geographic site about the discovery of the great circles in the CMB.
physics.org says with much research that it's been found that there is no change in time dialation for QSO's between 6 and 10 billion light years. In CJ Cosmology this would be because once the mass and stars of the jet contacts the disc as seen in the WMAP images of the second type, they aren't moving radially much relative to us. The're a stable structure just as the disc of the milky way is.
There are some who believe the circle and cosmic edges seen are evidence for colliding bubble universes, perhaps powered by cosmic inflation, where the impact leaves a dent in our cosmos like a crater. However there would be more complex ripples of the sides as seen in common craters, and the jets might allow more simple edges, like the edges seen. Click here for my thoughts about this.
Archeology is good to reduce fat! When some of us click the burger, wifi goes to high arches!
