Modified Raychauduri Equation With Poincare Symmetry And Non-Conservation

[OceanBreeze]

NO!!!!!!

 

 

Only a crackpot uses so many !

[OceanBreeze]

Acceleration from centrifugal force is

 

[math]\omega \times (\omega \times R)[/math]

 

 

 

 

Get it right for once.

 

 

Bullshit

[Super Polymath]

Technically rotation is constant & it's accelerating. It's only constant relatively, but as the matter propagates & cools through expansion the angle increases so the angular velocity also increases. Yet it has to increase exponentially or the rate expansion slows, & the angular velocity isn't increasing exponentially - so the rate of expansion has slowed down, but the rate of rotation has sped up - which is why galaxies are flying away from each other faster & faster.

[Super Polymath]

We can't observe this rotation (it looks just like expansion, galaxies flying apart FTL) now because it occurs over a vaster region than the observable universe, so Hawking's model really is incomplete, as 006 said.

[Super Polymath]

Now don't quote me on anything absolute, but I think it is possible that the age of the universe could be higher because of those corrections. Rotation to explain expansion is one thing, but if it has slowed down, it means we have to add some more time to the cosmic clock. (I think?)

 

I'll look more into this, on this one, I could be wrong.

Expansion increases the rate of rotation, because the angular momentum increases.

[Super Polymath]

Okay, so the rotation of evaporating black holes gives the universe its rotation, which leads to expansion - which itself both increases the rate of rotation & decreases the rate of expansion (but expansion is still continuous).

[Super Polymath]

More or less, yes. I just didn't use the word incomplete, I just said limited. But what is also limited is my knowledge on what evdience existed back in the 60's for dark flow. If it was not this, this could be interesting, because it might suggest he is aware of more evidence of something I am unaware of.

Hawking knows more than we're told.

 

America was supossed to build a super particle accelerator that would have dwarfed the LHC & we were also suppossed to implement a resource based economy in the 1960s to avoid losing the gold standard. But the powers that be try to keep us somewhat in the dark ages, to maintain wealth disparity & social hierarchy. Equality is automatically labeled as Communism, even though it's not necessarily anything like Communism.

[OceanBreeze]

Now, you actually did say something of intelligence earlier, yes it is possible to measure such a difference between the then and now, but not applying it to Hawkings model to mine it won't work, again, both incompatible theories.

 

What your equation can do, is explain the magnitude of what the early rotation was based on my equalities and approximations, and then you can work out the deviation to the present state.

 

It would be nice challenge for you to work that one out --- I offer you an olive branch, it doesn't need to be like this, we can start all over again you know. It's not too late. You don't need to be like this with me.

 

I have an idea; why don’t you do your own calculation and tell us what the primordial rotation was? I have already done my calculation, (“the universe would have rotated .0013 radians since the BB”) and now I find that it was indeed wrong, but not in the way you think!

 

According to this source, (you will need to scroll down to find it) it “quotes Collins and Hawking (1973) as deriving  a very tight bound on any cosmic rotation from the CMBR anisotopy: they find that the universe can have rotated by at most 1e-12 revolutions since the big bang.”

 

That is many orders of magnitude Less than what I came up with, and amounts to virtually no rotation at all.

 

I can well understand you not accepting my calculation, as I am not a cosmologist nor am I pretending to be, but Hawking certainly is, and we still do not see a calculated number from you. Why is that?

[Super Polymath]

I have an idea; why don’t you do your own calculation and tell us what the primordial rotation was? I have already done my calculation, (“the universe would have rotated .0013 radians since the BB”) and now I find that it was indeed wrong, but not in the way you think!

 

According to this source, (you will need to scroll down to find it) it “quotes Collins and Hawking (1973) as deriving a very tight bound on any cosmic rotation from the CMBR anisotopy: they find that the universe can have rotated by at most 1e-12 revolutions since the big bang.”

 

That is many orders of magnitude Less than what I came up with, and amounts to virtually no rotation at all.

 

I can well understand you not accepting my calculation, as I am not a cosmologist nor am I pretending to be, but Hawking certainly is, and we still do not see a calculated number from you. Why is that?

That's based on zero time, or the Planck epoch of the big bang, that it emerged from one singularity of infinite density, which is impossible.

 

006's model is based on the spin of evaporating black holes. Suffice it say, we can't plug in a model yet. We'd need to detect & use tachyons to get observational data of the black holes that existed before the quark epoch.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

If this is your own theory, please make a thread of your own Super. You too are derailing the thread. The only difference is, you are not doing intentionally.

It is apart of your theory.

 

Otherwise there wouldn't be a tachyon bath for the evaporating black holes to bind into quark-gluon plasma & dark flow + particle scattering (into tachyons aka cherenkov radiation) cant be observationally confirmed.

 

The goal is to use special relativity beyond the speed of light & use time dilation as the fifth fundamental force of nature in order to create series expansions to find the general SMBH rotation through your completing your then & now ratio & see if it predicts the black hole spin correctly when we have a partial dyson swarm for a laser beam powerful enough to create an artificial singularity, this kugeblitz engine would be close enough to measure the rotation & your should predict accurately. Then we use the model to find the anthropic isotope we inhabit by predicting the rate at which the atomic nucleus switches with the quantum particles in its orbit.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Because without Cherenkov radiation there's nothing for the vast gamma rays emitted by evaporating black holes at the end of the big chill to fuse into the quark-gluon plasma of the CMBR.

 

Meaning you're left with The Big Bang Theory, & as Ocean Breeze showed, Hawking claimed that rotation is too slow to account for current observations of dark energy in the CMBR for your Dark Flow.

[Buffy]

Thread closed at the request of the Original Poster. Feel free as usual to start new threads.

 

 

But through it all, when there was doubt, I ate it up and spit it out, :phones:

Buffy

[LaurieAG]

I don't think the thread is quite closed Buffy, if you can see this post that is.

 

Oh I have brought the topic up with a number of scientists, there hasn't been a refutation, not that this ''idea on expansion'' has to be correct, but its a new spin on things. In fact, its required for my rotation picture. 

 

Some scientists have already written about whether acceleration is an illusion of the universe and here I provide a new interpretation of the data.

 

I can see one good empirical reason that may support an idea on expansion with a new spin so I'd appreciate your comments.

 

Are you aware that the Planck 2013 data shows that, according to [math]\Lambda[/math]CDM, total universal matter divided by total visible matter equals [math]2 \pi[/math] +/-1%? Does your expanding rotating model replicate this ratio as well?

 

 

[Super Polymath]

I don't think the thread is quite closed Buffy, if you can see this post that is.

 

 

I can see one good empirical reason that may support an idea on expansion with a new spin so I'd appreciate your comments.

 

Are you aware that the Planck 2013 data shows that, according to [math]\Lambda[/math]CDM, total universal matter divided by total visible matter equals [math]2 \pi[/math] +/-1%? Does your expanding rotating model replicate this ratio as well?

You're doing it backwards.

 

Basically, you inflate a black hole to the thermodynamic volume & density of the current universe (which we get 1/18th of based on the CMB), increasing angular velocity exponentially (using special relativity beyond the speed of light for the singularity of a black hole equal to the one in the BBT - way beneath the Planck length b/c this is a black hole with the mass of the entire CMBR - & also when the black hole inflates to a volume greater than the particle horizon) & you give black hole spin as a variable x, you solve for x in 006's ratio; & 006's then & now ratio is by default transformed to accommodate dark flow by replicating that Lambda CDM ratio.

 

So that's what 006 can do, & confirm I'd imagine. Or I could do if I understood some of the terms in his then & now ratio.

 

Then the ratio gives you a general model for SMBH spin, which should be within varied approximations of observational data on SMBH spin...

 

P.S. Assuming this model:

 

Once you've accounted for the number of galaxies in 18x the observable universe, & the directions in which they're spinning using combinatorial math & deriving that 17/18th of unobservable directions of galactic rotation from the CMB, as well as the number of negative gravitational waves being released by the spinning evaporating black holes to rotate, expand, & fuse a near-absolute zero tachyon bath of scattered sub-Planckian Cherenkov radiation from the big freeze into the quark-gluon plasma of the CMB, you can find & manufacture the EXACT anthropic isotope we inhabit, which would be like finding God & reproducing Her.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Super Polymath

[OceanBreeze]

I don't think the thread is quite closed Buffy, if you can see this post that is.

 

 

I can see one good empirical reason that may support an idea on expansion with a new spin so I'd appreciate your comments.

 

Are you aware that the Planck 2013 data shows that, according to [math]\Lambda[/math]CDM, total universal matter divided by total visible matter equals [math]2 \pi[/math] +/-1%? Does your expanding rotating model replicate this ratio as well?

 

 

I don’t see what that ratio has to do with rotation; it is not related by anything more than coincidence, a classic case of apophenia.

 

 

As for something more substantial, I finally found Collins and Hawking’s full paper on THE ROTATION AND DISTORTION OF THE UNIVERSE, and it does not look good for any rotating universe hypothesis.

 

QUOTE

If there were a non-zero large-scale vorticity, distant matter would be rotating with respect to the local inertial frame. This would seem to be incompatible with Mach’s principle, which states that the local inertial frame should be determined in some way by the overall distribution of matter in the Universe. The upper limits we have found for [math]\omega[/math]  may therefore be regarded as experimental verification of Mach’s principle. This verification is particularly good in the case of a closed Universe (type IX) in which the upper limit on the present value of [math]\omega /\dot { \alpha  }[/math] is the remarkably low figure of 10^-11. This would imply that the Universe could have rotated through only 2 x 10-4 seconds of arc since the big bang, provided that the Universe has been nearly isotropic at all times.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Where [math]\omega /\dot { \alpha  }[/math] is the ratio of vorticity to the average rate of expansion.

 

(I don't think the thread is closed either :omg: )

[exchemist]

I don’t see what that ratio has to do with rotation; it is not related by anything more than coincidence, a classic case of apophenia.

 

 

As for something more substantial, I finally found Collins and Hawking’s full paper on THE ROTATION AND DISTORTION OF THE UNIVERSE, and it does not look good for any rotating universe hypothesis.

 

QUOTE

If there were a non-zero large-scale vorticity, distant matter would be rotating with respect to the local inertial frame. This would seem to be incompatible with Mach’s principle, which states that the local inertial frame should be determined in some way by the overall distribution of matter in the Universe. The upper limits we have found for [math]\omega[/math]  may therefore be regarded as experimental verification of Mach’s principle. This verification is particularly good in the case of a closed Universe (type IX) in which the upper limit on the present value of [math]\omega /\dot { \alpha  }[/math] is the remarkably low figure of 10^-11. This would imply that the Universe could have rotated through only 2 x 10-4 seconds of arc since the big bang, provided that the Universe has been nearly isotropic at all times.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Where [math]\omega /\dot { \alpha  }[/math] is the ratio of vorticity to the average rate of expansion.

 

(I don't think the thread is closed either :omg: )

Thanks for this. It seems to have been published 4 years after the paper I referred to earlier in the thread and to refer to it, being a further extension of the same line of thought.

 

Again it seems to do what we have been looking for, namely to place upper limits on the rate of any rotation of the universe that can be consistent with the observed isotropy of the CMBR. It thus appears to be a reasonable observational test for models of the universe that involve rotation.

 

I also found this, which is much more recent. http://www.earlyuniverse.org/is-the-universe-rotating/  from a group at University College London.

 

It does not quite rule it out completely, but suggests there is no evidence for rotation at the moment.   

Edited June 24, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

See, any calculation on an upper limit is good theoretical work. I am interested in a few things:

 

1) Hawkings paper suggests upper limits on rotation today

 

2) His paper still does not take into account any exponential decay model

 

3) I have an upper limit of the primordial spin, the observational data suggests dark flow is the spin

 

 

So the questions are simple, is dark flow compatible with Hawkings model, and if Hawkings model does not include spin, how does it make his paper a reasonable insight into a phenomenon?

Please see later amendment to my post, with findings from 2013.