MeerKAT uncovers the physics of an Odd Radio Circles: A suggested Annulus theory:

 MeerKAT uncovers the physics of an Odd Radio Circles: A suggested Annulus theory:

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPx1UbPSJjQJNHN432v1LWLXO7194wznWuNJT8

Have recently read out about the ORC phenomenon. It’s not clear but the available reference on these rings suggests they are all the same size of 1 arc minute regardless of there assumed distance from the earth observer. If this is correct it’s odd that they would all just happen to be the same visual size in the observers image plane. Despite being attributed to galactic sources at various different cosmological distances. If so, this is a strange phenomena indeed. That aside;

However in this paper  https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.10669 (Norris et al 2022) has an image of an ORC (called ORC 1 in the paper in figure 1 from the paper) that is interesting. The assumption is that in this case and generally with the other OCD’s they are two intersecting expanding circles of some sort of ejecta orthogonal to each other. And that these expanding thin circles are actually “bubbles”. But because the bubbles ejecta density is relatively thin we only see the edge of each bubble where the overall density is greatest. The problem with this model is that in the Norris et al figure 1 image of ORC 1 the bubbles are not perfect circles. Which they would have to be if they were just the optically more dense edge of the bubble. In other words the ORC 1 bubble could not be a bubble but rather two concentric rings of ejecta blasted simultaneously from a single central source. Something no theory on galaxy formation could explain. 

To explain ORC 1 using the bubble ejecta model mentioned in Norris et al my idea is that, in this case at least, there are two seperate ejecta  bubbles expanding out from two seperate offset central sources. Each source separated by a small distance. And that these two expanding bubbles are overlapping with each forming an annulus ring (illustrated below) as they expand. Rather than a two separate expanding rings from the same source that are orthogonal to the other as is usually interpreted from the image.

If one studies the image from the paper, the outer slightly flattened circle is in fact the visible edges of 2 seperate circular bubble edges. And the internal orthogonally skewed ring is in fact the annulus ring denoting where the two seperate bubbles interact with each other. Indicating that these are two bubble shockwaves of ejected material of some type that also glow as bright as the edge on of the bubbles do where the two meet and overlap in space. 

Of course the problem here is that the coincidence of two seperate neighbouring bubbles erupting at the same time is statistically pretty small. However it’s possible that this small statistical probability explains why these type of ORC 1 observations as described in Norris et al are fairly uncommon.



Dark energy survives major challenge

Introduction 

In 2025 a group of theorists claimed the evidence for dark energy was weakening. Their research suggested that the expansion of the universe might no longer be speeding up and offered a different mathematical solution to the apparent “ acceleration” problem first mooted by Reiss and others a few decades ago. However an even more recent paper (Still accelerating: type Ia supernova cosmology is robust to host galaxy age evolution. Wiseman, Reiss et al 2026.) with authors including Reiss, one of the the original proponents of imaginary acceleration, argued this 2025 paper refuting acceleration was erroneous.

Separate to this It’s amazing how critics say that any paper that doesn’t supply enough “maths” does not contain acceptable levels of theoretical  ‘proof’ to publish. Yet these same maths obsessed theorists will ignore the fact that endless “acceptable” peer reviewed published papers with pages and pages of maths and formulae will end up being subsequently rejected as erroneous and not acceptable as theoretical proof anyways. Probably 99 % of papers riddled with pages and pages of “acceptable” amounts maths and published in the last century have been subsequent rejected as nonsense theory by the same establishment theorists who claim that endless pages of maths confers acceptabilty regardless of how ridiculous the theoretical concept in the paper turns out to be.

Anyways to get back to this tit for tat acceleration debate it’s worth pointing out that in fact despite endless fiddling of the evidence with maths, the acceleration and expansion problem is theoretically unsound as the acceleration first mooted by those theorists including Reiss in the 90’s is just an attempt to disguise the fact that the SN1a data sourced from the SCP actually shows no expansion at all! As shown by the maths in this chi squared maths page. 

And the apparent acceleration imagined by Reiss was actually an artifact of his attempt to try and explain why the non expanding data fit less and less well with data from higher and higher redshifted SN2a data in the BBT expanding model.

Summary

Essentially the SN1a data is not time dilated at all. As this paper and others show to be true. So when subsequently higher redshifted data fails to show time dilation, the expected BBT time dilated lightcurve obviously can not be observed. 

Why? Because the universe isn’t expanding. 

To account for this lack of time dilation observed in ever higher redshifted SN data, theorists like Reiss and Wiseman pretend the time dilated lightcurve is still there (!) but it’s too faint to be seen because of……Accelerated expansion!!

What bunkum these maths obsessed theorists resort to.