I think the inhomogeneous Universe is very highly contrived (we need to be close to the centre). Also, this recent work suggests such models can't really explain away dark energy very easily:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4399

The most telling thing might be that the growth of structure is too slow in a Universe without dark energy. The evidence for an accelerated expansion does not just come from comparing different objects at different times, but in the way individual objects behave over time and thus the internal forces in them (which is slightly affected by DE).

Some aspects will be mimicked in a subset of inhomogeneous universes; for example, see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AstRv...9c...4P . In this subset, there is a cosmological-scale gravitational potential where our current position would be far from the center. However, due to gravitational lensing, our projection of the universe after 0.1z is that of galaxies and clusters accelerating back into the potential. Locally (3.5 sigma using old data (3-year WMAP). The effect of gravitational redshift has also been observed in SNIa data, which arises due to Earth being on a large-scale gradient (gravitational). Many small details of this model do not mimic concordance model, but are in better agreement with observations.

Article Evidence of a Global Gravitational Potential

Michael

You should not refer to large-scale B-mode polarization in old data (3-year WMAP),which are already obsolete, things move so fast, The  9-year WMAP data and the Planck data only give upper limits for a B-mode polarization, see K.M Smith & al.,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 031301 (2014) and arXiv:1404.0373.

Dear Michael, i just find a rather old paper (2007) on gravitational potential in a galaxy, which may be of interest. The question is whether we need some kind of fractal dimension in order to generalize it further for galaxy clusters and even Universe scale.

http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/ue32/galpottwo.pdf

Matts,

I wanted to use newer results, but was unable to find data that included actual B-mode lines. The other studies I was able to find only provided multipole magnitude, which cannot be used in this particular test without more advanced simulations (mostly due to small-scale lensing from clusters and such at higher multipoles). I instead applied data that was around the 24th multipole because the test is looking for a simple pattern without any free parameters.

The reason why I stuck with these results was due to the high degree of significance and alignment between several predicted features (note that the iso’s are levels of significance for the signal, reaching >3.5 sigma).

1. The CMB dipole clearly shows up on the large-scale B-mode test, which actually lowers the significance of the results; i.e. applying better data and removing the dipoles influence should only increase the stated significance.

2. If the universe can be viewed as a massive lens, then we would expect hemispherical power asymmetry due to phase mixing over different geodesic paths. For example, directions with the shortest metric distance to the center of the universe (do not deflect) would have no phase mixing of the CMB. The opposite direction will have noticeable phase mixing leading to hemispherical power asymmetry. The alignment between the B-mode and power asymmetry poles are within 30 degrees of each other and unlikely to be a fluke.

3. There are predicted large-scale features that further align with these results. Unlike claims of Stephen Hawkings initials being in the CMB, these features are clear and statistically significant.

Although there is more work to be done, I just don’t have the computational power available to do so. When all of the aspects are taken into consideration however, the theory is sound and verified to a relatively high degree of confidence. Perhaps there are some variations in theory beyond the predictions of a global gravitational potential, but I believe at least this aspect is on firm ground.

Victor,

In terms of cosmology, I simplify gravitational potential relative to local observers. The only thing that matters is a change in potential and velocity. Relative to metric or luminosity distance r’, any large gravitational potential will appear nearly linear to local observers (versus say 1/r). Thus I used basic general and special relativity with a linear gravitational potential (relative to local observers) to get a perfect fit with SNIa data. However, this only constrains one aspect of the cosmological space-time metric. It turns out that observations are not good enough to differentiate between various cases of a static metric (flat, negative curvature, ect), but they are good enough to distinguish a universe undergoing accelerated metric expansion from a static metric with dynamic objects; e.g. objects accelerating back into a static gravitational potential.

The same can be said for galaxies, i.e. gravitational potential alone does not describe the entire situation for all theories of general relativity (for some it might). However, galaxies and clusters come with additional problems. For example, we do not actual witness the dynamics of the system, but instead measure the redshift of its constitutes at a given point in time. Thus there can be many flaws depending on the methods used to deduce the mass of an object ranging from basic assumptions (cosmological models) to personal preferences. For example, distant galaxy clusters in my model are nearly the same size as local ones, while for LCDM they can reach over 100x smaller. Using lensing data based upon this assumption will provide drastically different results.

Hello Christianto,

I am intrigued by your question ‘How close can an inhomogeneous Universe mimic the Concordance Model?’ It appears from your question that the LCDM and concordance models still are not capable of answering the enigma of the cosmological constant, dark energy, negative energy(?) and other universal processes.

I would appreciate it if you would scan through the manuscript of ‘Expansion of the Universe and the Hubble Constant’ (see below).  

The model is on experimentally proven physical science. This Universe- model defines a novel definition of the Hubble-correlation as the rate constant of the expansion,  and changes of the Universe with time.

It also predicts the variability of Hubble-constant determinations, and using this variability to determine the center and fine-structure of the Universe. It eliminates the cosmological constant, dark energy, or negative energy.

The model of the Universe is part of the exploration of a modified universal model. You may also look at the links below. 

Reaction Kinetic Expansion of the Universe and the Hubble Constant

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262046454_Reaction-Kinetic_Expansion_of_the_Universe_and_the_Hubble_Constant_5-7-08?ev=prf_pub

Formation of the Universe as a Crystallization Process and the Evolution of Gravity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264339506_Formation_of_the_Universe_as_a_Crystallization_Process_and_the_Evolution_of_Gravity?ev=prf_pub

Instability of Stellar-Planetary Systems

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262070181_Instability_of_Stellar-Planetary_Systems_Contents?ev=prf_pub

Cheers, Ingo

Article Reaction-Kinetic Expansion of the Universe and the Hubble Co...

Article Formation of the Universe as a Crystallization Process and t...

Data Instability of Stellar-Planetary Systems Contents

Dear Ingo: thanks for your references. Best wishes