Modified Raychauduri Equation With Poincare Symmetry And Non-Conservation

[OceanBreeze]

The anomaly is, why do the supermassive galaxies rotate normally in the same directions? Again,the simplest answer is a universal rotation, otherwise, I don't know of any other explanation for this other than some dipole.

 

Simple answer is, They don't.   There is Ockham's razor for you!

Edited June 13, 2017 by OceanBreeze

[exchemist]

For it to be a cosmic accident, would be around 1 in a million, the excess is around 7%.

 

Edit. In science, we go by what are called the sigma values to show how likely something is to occur, sigma 5 is the mark in which we consider the proving grounds of a statement. 1 in a million falls far short of this statistic.

You obviously follow all this far more closely than I, but if this is now incontrovertible, as you seem to suggest, why is it that I cannot find any references to the concept of primordial rotation of the universe anywhere on the web? Can you direct me to any summary of current cosmological thinking that includes it? Or are you saying that the data is there but is for some reason being ignored or rejected?

[exchemist]

I have outlined some of the papers in the references in the OP as well.

 

 

(EDIT)

 

Incontrovertible may be a bit too strong, but strong evidence, yeah, I think there is something in it and we need to detail more chiralities of galaxies. 

Yes, I suppose though that what I was getting at is if this were now fully accepted, it would have made its way into the summaries of the science that a lot of us non-specialists rely on. But maybe it is too early. Does a rotating universe mean the "cosmological principle" would have to be abandoned? I would have thought so - not that there is any reason to keep it if the data shows it to be wrong, of course.

[Super Polymath]

Oh no, the universe has ended up homogeneous (sort of). There would have been an axis of rotation very early on in the universe, which has implications concerning a bulk energy transfer. You see, it takes energy to rotate, the energy has to come from somewhere, and so may be a novel solution to the energy problem of the vacuum, which is 10^122 magnitudes too small.

It's homogeneous when we look at the vastest observable expanse because when you take any golden spiral & set sqaure-parameters on it will not be a golden ratio spiral (Fibanocci sequence) if the parameters occur as the spiral curves off radically enough, it will be a square (observable universe) with something reminiscent of a golden spiral in it (galaxies). Expand those parameters & you'll probably see that chirality again, an infinite number of times.

 

One cannot say the universe beyond what we can see is homogeneous, when the only reason it seems homogeneous to us is more likely (based on inner structures like galaxies) merely homogeneous by virtue of being limited by our perceptions.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Time is always a positive integer. Whether you end up putting that integer in before a googolplex zeroes or ahead of a Graham's number of zeroes ahead of a decimal is irrelevant, it's still positive. Same thing with matter, & space.

 

There are 3 dimensions, & space-time is linear - it does not begin or end @ any point.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

If a cosmos of infinitude instantly collapses into the perfect golden spiral, which we see everywhere in nature, than matter can only rearrange itself in x number of ways - which would mean that there must be a chirality of superclusters of galaxies surrounding what we perceive as the atom in which we reside, or some chiral-like formation of matter orbiting the nucleus of every type of atom we know & more. To us, bits of this atomic aura would be no different than a positively or negatively charged electron.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Which is why I emplored you to implement fractal cosmology into your model.

 

Now, I can't really express these concepts in purely mathematical terms, but I think someone already has, String Theory & conventional QM are based on the BBT & expansion - which were likely disregarded decades ago (hello Einstein, I see what you did there).

 

Modern academics is just fronting with the Lambda Cult Dark Matter Model. Probably to give people a use in an outdated civilization holding onto its free-markets, however meaningless. Same reason menial laborers like myself can still make 20 dollars an hour by the power of supply-chain contracting, a lot more than someone with a Fine Arts Major or most desk-jockeys.

 

They're not going to actually burn all that gold-standard removed paper & go to Jacque Fresco anytime soon.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Super Polymath

[OceanBreeze]

I am collaborating with a friend down south over my plans for this theory. A paper will not do - a paper will not cover all the aspects that need to be tackled - which amounts to pages and pages of work, so what I have decided with this friend is that I am going to write a book and he will be my guidance through the presentation and idea's.

 

If all goes well, I hope to publish a book on pseudo de sitter spaces.

 

 

Of course! Why bother with a "paper" when you can write a book? The question is, who will bother to read it?

[OceanBreeze]

Hawking has said on Friedmann models that use rotation:

 

''These models could well be a reasonable description of the universe we observe,  however observational data are compatible only with a slow rotation.''

 

 

So much for Oceans objection about my model not satisfying observation. Also, I explain rotation decays from the work of Hoyle and Narlikar, which shows why rotation today is slow!

 

 

How about a source (link) for that quote? I suspect he said a bit more than just that. For example, did he happen to comment on just how slow that rotation would need to be?

[exchemist]

How about a source (link) for that quote? I suspect he said a bit more than just that. For example, did he happen to comment on just how slow that rotation would need to be?

I had a quick look and found this: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/142/2/129/2888629/On-the-Rotation-of-the-Universe 

 

which seems to put some upper bounds on how fast any rotation can be. 

[OceanBreeze]

I had a quick look and found this: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/142/2/129/2888629/On-the-Rotation-of-the-Universe 

 

which seems to put some upper bounds on how fast any rotation can be. 

 

 

 

That is interesting. Thank you.

 

Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to take that approach; to place an upper limit on any possible rotation, rather than try to disprove the universe is rotating. It would just not be scientifically possible to observationally “prove” that there is no rotation at all.

 

But, that does place a very tight bound on any possible rotation. I will need to read more of what he said. I wonder if the limit was determined by observations of the CMB or some other way.

 

I have read elsewhere that any significant rotation just after the BB (during the BB nucleosynthesis) would affect the production of light elements and the universe could not have evolved to be the way it is now.

 

There is a good discussion about this issue here.

 

Anyway, . . .  if I take his highest value of 10^-14 rad /yr, the universe would have rotated .0013 radians since the BB!

That is, the universe rotated less than one tenth of a degree in 13 Billion years.

 

It hardly seems enough to account for an energy equal to that needed to replace the cosmological constant, dark energy, with the claim of a centripetal force. But what do I know?

 

 I am sure 006 will have all the answers in his book!

[exchemist]

Is it just me, or have I not explained this thing about the decaying rotation everyone, quite a few times??

 

Why do I feel like when I am talking with Ocean on this theory, he just doesn't simply grasp it? I was just sitting there after those last posts thinking, how many times have I actually said, rotation used to be fast, it has decayed and dark flow is evidence of the residual flow.

 

But it doesn't seem to sink in and I have to continue repeating myself. I just get the feeling his heart aint in this!

I'm not clear. Are you saying your model is consistent with Hawking's upper bound on the rate of any rotation observed today? Or are you saying Hawking's value is wrong? 

[exchemist]

What I am saying is this: The primordial expansion phase has a rotation which can fit the numerical value required to accelerate a universe with a rotation term.

 

Hawking has not assumed, or mentioned any decay model for rotation making any assumption that a slow rotation existed during BB as folly, especially without the additional work of Hoyle or Narlikar who show this would be the case.

That does not answer my question. Let me try again.

 

If I have understood Hawking correctly, he proposes an upper limit to the rate of rotation it is possible for the universe to have NOW, i.e. in its currently observed state.  He is saying, I think, that if there is any rotation today it no more than 10⁻¹⁴ radians/yr if the universe is closed and about 2x10⁻⁴⁶ if it closed. 

 

Is your model consistent with these maximum rates of currently observed rotation?  Or do you dispute these upper limits he is proposing?

Edited June 20, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

Look at what Ocean wrote:

 

''Anyway, . . .  if I take his highest value of 10^-14 rad /yr, the universe would have rotated .0013 radians since the BB!''

 

Now look at your statement

 

''If I have understood Hawking correctly, he proposes an upper limit to the rate of rotation it is possible for the universe to have NOW''

 

 

Your statement is correct, Oceans was not. That is what was wrong here, it isn't about a model per se, or that Hawking is wrong per se, if rotation decays, then there is additional information, it has not always had a slow spin which is the key point.

Good. So now, can you answer my fcuking question, finally? 

[Super Polymath]

This value above is the primordial spin - its value will exponentially decay...

 

If a universe decelerates, the left hand side of the equation becomes negative (negative acceleration).

The rotation isn't decelerating so much as falling off the edge of what we can observe. As matter spreads out evenly it gets thinner, less dense, so the affected mass rotates over a larger surface area. Negating what drops off doesn't give dark flow quite as much support as would implenting doubly special relativity (apart of fractal cosmology).

[Turtle]

Rotation has to decelerate indicating the universe is in fact decelerating.

 

At first I could not see why this would be so... here is an excerpt again from the book. These excerpts will be deleted in a few days, but since these bits have already been typed up, it really eases my game to refer to these with any questions. I challenge the interpretation of red shift! Or that the physics cannot be giving a clear picture about the current state of a universe. As I articulate:

 

"... 

Consider what is being suggested here: The universe once had a fast rotation, today we are saying that rotation is slow – Hoyle and Narlikar have shown in their work that rotation will decay for a universe. We are suggesting then, [that] maybe dark flow is the residual rotation that is left over.

...

Even if our interpretation is wrong in this case, we must not lose faith and search for alternative models – even in the last few years, it has become somewhat of a trend for physicists to challenge the red shift, eluding to the possibility that acceleration is possibly an illusion. ..."

Just a note on the writing, which is to suggest you have a professional editor proof it. I underlined just two of many mistakes. The first, my addition of a comma and the word 'that' is arguably a matter of style, but I think we understand you're not much interested in that. ( :lol: )

The second mistake I marked however, changes the meaning of the sentence. You wrote 'eluding' and it is simply the wrong word and the correct word is 'alluding'.

 

Also, since I quoted the entire passage it will remain in this post even if you delete your original post. :shrug: Carry on then with the round-and-round. :circle:

 

Edit: Nonessential text redacted

Edited June 21, 2017 by Turtle

[Super Polymath]

Rotation has to decelerate indicating the universe is in fact decelerating.

 

At first I could not see why this would be so... here is an excerpt again from the book. These excerpts will be deleted in a few days, but since these bits have already been typed up, it really eases my game to refer to these with any questions. I challenge the interpretation of red shift! Or that the physics cannot be giving a clear picture about the current state of a universe. As I articulate:

Expansion isn't really decelerating, it's occurring over a broader, less pressurized area of space time. As the universe has lost heat & density from the time of the quark epoch until the time of the galaxies - the dispersed material expands at relatively the same rate, only over a greater surface area.