Not in my area of expertise at all, but I think I can correct some misunderstandings by referring to "velocity space" in which distances would be expressed as km/s.

Additionally, it appears that there is a typo in the caption for Figure 1, where the term "pointing vector" almost certainly should be "Poynting vector." It's named after John Henry Poynting who derived it in 1884.

A fascinating paper. I have a few minor quibbles with some of the terminology however. The idea that a "dipole repeller" exists suggests the presence of positive space-time curvature or negative mass. From the paper I gather that the "repeller" is a region of low mass while the attractor is a region of high mass. Both would induce negative S-T curvature or attractive gravitation however. The velocity field would reveal that matter would tend to move toward the more dense attractor and away from the low density "repeller". This could be viewed as a region of negative gravity.but that is actually a misnomer. I find the issue of inhomogeneity on a cosmological scale more interesting. It has been generally assumed that when viewed on a very large scale the cosmos is homogeneous with inhomgenieties occurring only "locally". This is important because it imposes some significant restrictions on the structure and dynamics of the primordial event known as the "Big Bang". Inhomgenieties on a cosmological scale suggest that similar "clumpiness" must have been present in the initial event.

Hey thanks for this. I see that you posted the complete version of the 2nd YouTube link. Would you please do with the 1st?

I do not understand why distances are expressed in km/sec. For instance: "Our Local Group of galaxies is moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) with a velocity 1 of V CMB = 631 ± 20 km s^1 and participates in a bulk flow that extends out to distances of ~20,000 km s^1 or more... . It was suggested a decade ago that an underdensity in the northern hemisphere roughly 15,000 km s^−1 away contributes significantly to the observed flow."

The first expression is correct: our net velocity is expressed in km/sec. But throughout the article km s^-1 appears as an expression of distance.

Moreover, I question the basic arithmetic. If our local group is traveling at a mere 631 km/sec, in the 13.5 billion years of the Universe, we should have gone 268,332.75 trillion km, which is only 29,814 light years. But Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away. So, for all of this dipole stuff, we have hardly budged but 1.5% of the distance to our nearest neighbor. (I realize that the whole group is moving, not just the Milky Way.)

Also, the article assumes that this cosmic background radiation is an absolute frame of reference. That violates a basic assumption, the basic assumption of the student on the train who saw Prof. Einstein and asked him, "What time does Boston arrive at this train?"

Finally, for all the "universes" you can imagine, ultimately, there is only one universe, one reality. I understand the vernacular, but in a technical article, the technical fact is that they are ignorant of technical philosophy. The ad hominem that I have to toss out is: Isn't this stuff all government funded?

I'm not able to bring up the videos. Could you summarize the article?