This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Dipole repeller be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in astronomy may be able to help! |
The [paper describing the 'repeller' makes it crystal clear that it does not generate a repulsive force, any more than the sky pushes us towards the earth. It's just a region of low density that has anomalously low gravitational attraction for our part of the universe. While the second part of the article explains this, it does so after declaring that the area does create a repulsive force. This is confusing for any reader not familiar with the source material. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 23:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Describing gravity as an attractive force and the Dipole Repeller as a repulsive force is inconsistent with general relativity. The simplest and most plausible explanation for the Dipole Repeller is relaxation of the curvature of spacetime after the Milky Way galaxy has moved through it. As the mass moves, the distortion of spacetime is relieved in the region it used to occupy. This is a predictable consequence of general relativity. 104.59.220.241 ( talk) 23:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
A possible diagram (a very good looking and informative one) could be extracted from the scientific paper (either the far better vector version at the Nature Astronomy-site or the lower-res pixel-version at ArXiv). But I am unsure about the copyright issues involved. I just thought I would mention it. : CalRis ( talk) 08:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The sentence right in the beginning: "It is thought to be represented as a large supervoid, the Dipole Repeller Void." The way I read it, this implies that the supervoid is a model, and not a reality, but then "thought to be" is redundant. Suggested replacement: "It is thought to represent a large supervoid, the Dipole Repeller Void." ThatOneLooksSoSad ( talk) 07:10, 18 December 2021 (EST)