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

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

Regarding the recently discovered ORC phenomenon. It’s not clear but all the available reference on these rings suggests these various ORC 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 this paper 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 ) the rings in this image are two intersecting expanding circles of some sort of ejecta rings that are 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 ring where the overall density is greatest. The problem with this model is that in the above cited Norris et al figure 1 image of ORC 1 the bubble rings are not perfect circles. Which they would have to be if they were just the optically more dense edge of each of the two bubbles. In other words the ORC 1 "rings" could not be caused by expanding bubbles of ejecta, because they do not appear to us in the image as two perfectly circular overlapping rings. Something they would have to be to be explained by the usual bubble ejecta theory. Note in the cited ORC image the rings are flattened elipses Not perfect circles. 

Annulus explanation

To explain ORC-1 using the usual bubble ejecta model mentioned in various different reference and particularly in Norris et al, my idea is that, in this case at least, these are two seperate ejecta bubbles expanding out from two seperate slightly offset central sources. Each source separated by a small distance on the image plane. We see only the circular rings of the edge of the bubbles where the ejecta is more optically dense. And that these two expanding spherical bubbles are overlapping with each other and forming a third internal expanding annulus ring (as shown in the illustration below) as they expand. Rather than a two separate flattened expanding rings from the same source that are orthogonal to each other as is usually interpreted from the cited image.

If one studies the image from the paper, the outer slightly flattened elipse is in fact a combination of the visible edges of 2 separate circular ejecta bubbles. And the internal orthogonally skewed ring is in fact the annulus ring denoting where the two seperate bubbles interact orthoganally with each other. Indicating that these are two seperate bubble shockwaves of ejected material with a third internal annulus ring where the two intersect. 

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 this type of ORC 1 observations as described in the Norris et al paper are fairly uncommon.

Dark energy survives major challenge

Introduction 

In 2025 a group of theorists claimed the evidence for acceleration of the universe via dark energy in the SN1a data didn’t stand up to scrutiny. 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 based on an incorrect analysis.

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 theoretically acceptable anyways. Despite having initially claimed having so much maths in these papers confers proof. (Proven as they prefer to say). Probably 99 % of these math riddled papers proving various erroneous now rejected concepts 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 instant acceptabilty for publication regardless of how ridiculous the theoretical concept proposed in the paper actually is. Give a theoretical physicist an orange and with enough pages of maths, he can claim it’s actually an apple.

Anyways to get back to this tit for tat about the imaginary Big Bang acceleration debate: Its 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 ignored the fact that the SN1a data sourced from the SCP actually shows no expansion at all! As shown by the analysis in this chi squared maths page. 

And so the apparent acceleration claimed by Reiss and others was an attempt to try and explain why the non expanding data seemed to fit less and less well with data from ever higher and higher redshifted SN2a data in the BBT expanding model.

Summary

Essentially the SN1a data is not time dilated at all. As this analysis shows. Fortunately for theorists, it turned out that at low redshifts and with arbitrary tweaking of the luminosities of the Hubble Space Telescope SN1a data a fit of sorts to an expanding model was  possible. Although as this analysis shows the theorists forgot to control test the data with a z=0 chi square fitted model. If they had done this as the cited analysis shows, they would have found that the SN1a data fits as well and better to a non expanding model than to any expanding BBT model. And so when even higher redshifted data was fitted to their expanding model by theorists it failed to show the expected increased time dilation at these ever higher redshifts, as can be expected seeing as the universe isn’t expanding at all.

To account for this increasing lack of any observed time dilation at all in the very high redshifted data, theorists like Reiss and Wiseman pretend that the extra dilated time dilated lightcurve is still there but it’s just too faint to be seen! And they argue that the reason why they think the very hi redshifted dilated lightcurve is still there but can’t be seen is because an Accelerated expansion has placed them even farther away from our telescopes then originally expected in their original imaginary BBT model and therefore made them appear fainter than expected than in their original non accelerating BBT model

What flights of fantasy these maths obsessed theoretical physicists resort to to cover up the fact that astronomical observations of our non expanding universe continue to refute the BBT.