It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Shapley Concentration

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

The Shapley Supercluster or Shapley Concentration (SCl 124) is the largest concentration of galaxies in our nearby universe that forms a gravitationally interacting unit, thereby pulling itself together instead of expanding with the universe. It appears as a striking overdensity in the distribution of galaxies in the constellation of Centaurus. It is 650 million light years away (z=0.046).



The Shapley Supercluster lies very close to the direction in which the Local Group of galaxies (including our Galaxy) is moving with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) frame of reference. This has led many to speculate that the Shapley Supercluster may indeed be one of the major causes of our galaxy's peculiar motion — the Great Attractor may be another — and has led to a surge of interest in this supercluster. It has been found that the Great Attractor and all the galaxies in our corner of the universe (including our galaxy, the Milky Way) are moving towards the Shapley Supercluster.[5]


en.wikipedia.org...



So here is the situation....not only is the Milky Way headed in this direction. But also is pretty much every other Galaxy in respect to circumference, also headed in the same direction,


Including in discourse the issue of the "Great Wall", astronomically.


PDF file....

www.eso.org...




posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

So does the great attractor change our ideas on the Hubble constant?

Could the whole issue of redshift related anisotropy be a far more complex and turbulent system than predicted.

Could the large scale structures NOT be from the quantum foam of the pre expansion universe close to the singularity, but in fact be organizational structures that have evolved over time?

edit on 16/7/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

the peculiarity of our universe will kaap unfolding for an eternity



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I have a question..

What does it present if anything about the Universe if this Supercluster can hold its own against expansion?



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I think it's all a matter of cosmological locality. This may be a common occurrence, even a small one, in the Universe as a whole. We are limited by our ability to observe only that which still lies within our remaining sphere of visibility. Gravity does not cease to propagate across spacetime. It's influence only grows weaker at an inverse square to distance. So it makes perfect sense that clusters like this should exist. The expansion of spacetime is not yet rapid enough to prevent all objects of that scale from being drawn together.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy


Thanks for the response.


"Astrophysicists draw most comprehensive map of the universe..."

www.sciencedaily.com...


edit on 22-7-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Good article. But then again, that's the visible universe. We can estimate the total size of what we can't see, but we'll never know if we're right.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy


Back in the 90s in relation to then current comprehension it was considered that the Universe. As roughly 40 billion light years wide. while today we discuss more along the lines of about 80 billion light years wide.

Those two circles just to the left of our location is the Great Wall.


Given everything within 2 billion light years is moving towards "Shapley" and given its location. One conclusion would be all mass within about 5 billion light years is also moving in the same direction.

"The Visible Universe within 14 billion light years.."

www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...



edit on 22-7-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy


Actually the last link has been around since the 90s.


The issue of these concentrations given Gravity Theory as we generally understand it seems relevant to the topic.


PDF File....

www.eso.org...
edit on 22-7-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Well, since the expansion of the universe is "only" 68km/s at 1 megaparsec (3.3MLY, roughly), it l makes perfect sense that a gigantic accumulation of mass, and it's accompanying gravitational influence, could overcome this expansion.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy


So while Space/Time appears to be expanding the Mass within it seems to be contracting?



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Further...



Universe 156 billion light-years wide

Don't look back

"Our results don't rule out a hall-of-mirrors effect, but they make the possibility far less likely," Cornish said, adding that the findings have shown "no sign that the universe is finite, but that doesn't prove that it is infinite."

The results do render impossible a "soccer ball" shape for the universe, proposed late last year by another team. "However, if they were to 'pump up' their soccer ball to make it larger, they could evade our bounds" and still be in the realm of possibility, Cornish said. Other complex shapes haven't been ruled out.

The findings eliminate any chance of seeing our ancient selves, however, unless we can master time travel.

"If the universe was finite, and had a size of about 4 billion to 5 billion light-years, then light would be able to wrap around the universe, and with a big enough telescope we could view the Earth just after it solidified and when the first life formed," Cornish said. "Unfortunately, our results rule out this tantalizing possibility."



www.cnn.com...



edit on 23-7-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Not contracting, necessarily. Being drawn together by a universally pervasive force. There are other clusters and superclusters with even larger gravitational attraction that Expansion will never let our local group or supergroup/construct be drawn towards because the rate of expansion is too great at those distances.



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy


Perhaps the term "Concentration" would be appropriate?


What about in relation to a time scale in general of a "googolplex+"?

The Milky Way is moving towards Shapley at roughly 391.5 miles per second and in context so is another galaxy 650 billion light years away but on the opposite side of Shapely. The mass that makes up what we today call the Milky Way will one day find itself at Shapley as well as its equivalents in all directions, related to distance.


For me the issue is systemic these concentrations in time will gain enough mass individually to begin attracting each other.





edit on 23-7-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

OK, just going to say, firstly, that I have absolutely no idea how you are tying a gogolplex to the conversation or timeline. But, beyond that, you may actually be completely correct. Of all the galaxies in the Shapley, and those being drawn to it (all of the above with their constituent dark in tow), then the supergalaxies, megagalaxies or ultragalaxies they formed could very well have enough gravitational influence to drag matter backwards against Expansion at billions of lightyears of distance. But, let's look beyond the Shapley. How about the Laniakea Superstructure? What happens down the road when everything in that monster comes to a common center of gravitational attraction?



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Sorry, accidental double-post.
edit on 30-7-2016 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy



According to contemporary cosmologists' best guesses, the universe will continue to last for an extremely long time, something over a googolplex years. A googolplex is a very large number — 10 to the power of ten 10 to the power of 100. Some estimates are even larger. The question of how long it will last is related to the question of how long the human species, or our descendants, will last, barring some disaster that wipes people all out prematurely.


www.wisegeek.org...



I agree completely and above is my citation to the time frame question.



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
While perhaps a "fringe" suggestion our universe seems to behave like a Virtual Particle.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

OK, thanks for clarifying. I see what you meant now. Barring some cataclysmic interaction with some unknowable force outside of our universe, I don't imagine that Space itself will cease to exist.
Accelerating expansion would seem to indicate this, as well. Matter will eventually disappear as we currently know it, as eventually even protons will decay into their constituent quarks, which will then likely evaporate into energy.
Though, in the piece you quoted, it seems to be tying the existence of the universe directly to the existence of humankind or it's descendants. Though, having read the original article, it was discussing humanity's survival being tied intimately to the survival of the universe. Which is rather blindingly obvious. Personally, I find the Heat Death theory to be more likely than some others,such as the Big Rip. But Expansion eventually ripping even atoms apart does bring anew interesting question to mind. Would the gravitational force of a singularity be sufficient to overcome this?
Personally I have no idea.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I am offering a version of the big crunch where space time continues to expand but the mass concentrates.

Virtual radiation eventually becoming lead, from that frame a decay will result in a element changing into another.

An exception could be Hydrogen. particles are theorized to be relevant to space time expansion and so would also a Universe that cycled in that way. What exactly happens when a virtual particle "blinks", is also unknown but based upon what we know today it seems possible that what happens, is consistent with the mass of the virtual particle concentrating.

It would be interesting to one day take a look at the processes of virtual particles in relation to how exactly they function.

In relation to the protons of atoms there is the Strange Quark to consider as well in this regard.


At issue with particle decay is the means it is accomplished. Today we understand that elements like Uranium emit

In so far as expansion being the cause and with respect to our discussion all matter in our "Island Universe", in time will concentrate and in consideration then there is another Big Bang.

Just as in the case of virtual particles the event causes space time to further expand.

Good conversation.




top topics



 
3

log in

join