What If The Entire Universe Rotates?

[rhertz]

If the entire Universe is a rotating vortex

Edited June 20, 2019 by rhertz

[Dubbelosix]

1. Primordial rotation if it existed, can explain why things are moving apart in the universe via the centrifugal force.

 

2. Studies have shown the universe, if it is rotating now, is rotating very slowly (and I have likened dark flow to this) as a residual primordial rotation.

 

3. It has been mathematically shown by Hoyle and Narlikar that a rotating universe exponentially decays as it increases with a linear expansion.

 

4. Rotation would had significant effects on early galaxies such that they would tend to rotate in a particular way. Recent studies seem to show remarkable evidence for a preferred spin for galaxies, near to a 1 in a million chance.

 

5. Early rotation would allow the chirality of particles to be dictated - a right handed spinning universe would result for instance, in ordinary matter, while an anticlockwise spin would result in a universe dominated by antiparticles.

 

6. All these involve concepts beyond relativity, since a rotation would infer a preferred frame and CPT violations involve Lorentz violations in relativity.

[Dubbelosix]

You can read my various articles, the first one (found at the bottom of the submitted articles) explains how the centrifugal force wouldn't be the only pseudoforce to expect if a universe is rotating. I even considered a background radiation from cyclotron effects on charged particles in an early universe from spin.

 

https://gyroverse.quora.com/

[Dubbelosix]

The rotating universe ideas, has believers and none believers. Heres a couple of links one for and one against https://physicsworld.com/a/was-the-universe-born-spinning/ https://phys.org/news/2016-09-scientists-universe.html

 

Since you are in speculation mode, could both the spinning and none spinning universe people be partly right.

 

 

If the whole basis of a disbeliever revolves around (mind the pun) of a universe which shows no axis in the background temperatures, then they have literally ignored marvelous work in this area - we don't need to assume the background axis of evil any more as a real problem, since it has been shown in a rigorous mathematical way by Hoyle and Narlikar that a rotation exponentially decays anyway. The late Hawking has also made it quite clear from his own investigations, that currently the universe could be rotating, but it would have to be rotating very slowly. This is of course, in no way a contradiction to what has already been explained through the work of Hoyle and Narlikar.

 

So if the disbeliever bases their thoughts only on a background axis ''issue'' then it seems to me, they don't understand the model or read the literature which essentially makes it a non-problem.

[Dubbelosix]

Maybe I am ignorant. For any rotation there must be a point for it to rotate around. Otherwise there is no rotation. If you are referring to the hole of space rotating, then that would imply perhaps space has limits, perhaps a many worlds interpretation, and is not infinite. If it is infinite and rotating about an axis, how fricking fast are the outer galaxies going to be going, even if it is rotating imperceptibly slowly around an axis somewhere over the observable horizon.

 

If points in space are rotating around a 5th none dimensional point in some spooky action at a distance way. Then I am pretty sure there is Russian guy who wrote about this.   

 

Not ignorant at all, indeed, a spinning universe violates a major series of things in physics we have held so dearly to, such as:

 

1. There is a center to a universe

2. There is such a thing as a preferred frame (contrary to what relativity states)

3. And it all leads to Lorentz violations as well, something physics has looked at in various different ways (CPT violation) as I explained, is a Lorentz violation in special relativity

 

So while exotic these ''violations'' to our understanding of the universe is, I don't find them counter-intuitive because, we only assume in cosmology for instance, that a center doesn't exist because we use a very boring and strict condition of how the universe began. Preferred frames are abhorrent in relativity, yet a cosmological preferred frame answers the antimatter problem. And if physicists are willing to accept CPT violations have to go on, then the idea of Lorentz violations are no longer a thing of the past.

[RodneyBelieves]

If the universe is rotating, why must there be a drag on mass within it?  The universe might be rotating, but if there is a drag then that implies a friction between mass and space.  If there is such a friction then how does mass move through space under inertia without eventually coming to a stop?  If there is a friction when space moves around a mass then there is a friction when mass moves through space.

 

But, observation suggests that mass moves frictionless through space.  

 

 

[Dubbelosix]

If the universe is rotating, why must there be a drag on mass within it? 

 

Simply because spacetime is not nothing and acts likes like a fluid. This isn't anything special, the dragging of systems already exists in relativity, in the form of acceleration of the universe (at least this is how we currently understand how the furthest galaxies are receding faster than light). Likewise, a spinning universe would have had a very significant drag on the matter inside of it, today that drag can be explained as the dark flow phenomenon.

[Dubbelosix]

Frame dragging was confirmed by a satellite https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/05/long-last-gravity-probe-b-satellite-proves-einstein-right Mass twists space around it as it spins. The earth twists space around it, a spinning black hole, is going to distort it even more. Black holes spin on their own axis. Could individual galaxies be viewed as separate spinning universes, not unlike a multiverse. 

 

 

 

Ifs and Buts :)

 

If we couldn't see any other galaxies other than our own spinning galaxy!! 

 

and If a spinning galaxy is viewed as a universe, and obviously has a centre, would this still be considered in violation.

 

But then if we had no reference frame to measure the spin of our own galaxy, how would we know it is spinning. 

 

The physicist tends to regard a universe as a closed, self-contained and self-sufficient system - so in regards to your question about regarding galaxies as other universes, isn't quite what is meant by the definition of a universe, which ''encompasses all.'' No, I am quite sure that the observable universe is a single system in this regards. If we could not see any other galaxy spin, there would still be evidence of rotating system inside of the galaxy we harbor, simply because there is more than one reference frame.

[Dubbelosix]

I thought you asked if there was only one galaxy, how would we knew it spinned? I now realize you are asking about the universe itself.. there would be no other reference frame, all we could infer is the galaxy spinned.

[hazelm]

If the entire Universe is a rotating vortex, with dark matter as the fluid (remember the ether or aether?), it would impose a rotational drag to galaxies, which would transfer some of its angular moment to stars and, down from there, to planets and moons.

 

In this hypothetical case, no BBT would be needed and the existance of red-shifting could be attributed to increasing clock-wise rotations of galaxies with distance, which would be perceived at distances greater than 40 Myl. Some galaxies would rotate in a counter clock-wise direction, as any law has random exceptions.

 

The next step, due to this perpetual chain of rotations caused by celestial bodies dragged by dark matter, would be go back 350 years back in time and redefine gravity with a new type of force, which is due to rotational behavior of matter.

 

This force would work along with centripetal forces to mimic the effect of Newton's gravitational forces in his theory.

 

It this ridiculous?

 

I mean, the entire Universe rotating and dragging along the dark matter fluid, which transfers its effects to every celestial body.

 

By the way, does anyone knows of ANY celestial body which is not rotating somehow?  It can spinning of massive bodies and orbitals of smaller ones around the bigger ones (comets, asteroids, even small planets).

 

Too crazy to explain gravity?

If anything were not rotating at fast speed, could it even stay in its position?  Or, within the universe?  When a good pitcher pitches, doesn't he also set the ball to spinning (rotating)?  When does a ball fall to the ground?  When it stops rotating? 

 

Just my uninformed thoughts.

[hazelm]

I thought you asked if there was only one galaxy, how would we knew it spinned? I now realize you are asking about the universe itself.. there would be no other reference frame, all we could infer is the galaxy spinned.

I think I narrowed it down even more.  The entire universe?  If it were not spinning, wouldn't it simply fall apart and its individual components (if spinning) maybe fly apart and continue on their diverse ways?

 

And, no, rhertz, your question is not ridiculous.  My brain is spinning.  Good.  I needed something new to think about.  I shall return.

[RodneyBelieves]

at least this is how we currently understand how the furthest galaxies are receding faster than light

 

The universe does not have to be physically expanding to explain galaxies receding from us.

 

In fact, if all mass were moving away from a center in a very simple pattern of inertia, it could easily offer that observation -- as well as acceleration, dark flow, undiscernible expansion at local ("close") range, etc.

 

 

Would welcome any feedback...

 

http://hubbleconstantatthespeedoflight.com/

[RodneyBelieves]

Simply because spacetime is not nothing and acts likes like a fluid. This isn't anything special, the dragging of systems already exists in relativity, in the form of acceleration of the universe (at least this is how we currently understand how the furthest galaxies are receding faster than light). Likewise, a spinning universe would have had a very significant drag on the matter inside of it, today that drag can be explained as the dark flow phenomenon.

 

I have a question about the discovery of gravity waves. You sound like a good source of info.

 

When light propagates away from its emitting object, the object moves on from the emission point, but the gravity waves point forever back to that spot, frozen in time, unless bounced or lensed.  I would assume that the discovery of gravity waves causes one to wonder how gravity works.

 

Once a gravity wave is emitted from the mass, the mass moves on.  If a gravity wave is propagating through the universe at light speed it is pointing back to the point of emission as it goes.  It will pull whatever it encounters toward that spot, not the current location of the emitting object.  This can't be right or we would see objects getting pulled toward seemingly nothing and this could be easily spotted using stable orbits, if there were any.

 

This thought intriged me, so I built a little simulator based on two objects being very far apart and sending out gravity waves toward each other.  I set the objects moving in the same direction but at different speeds.  The gravity waves from the furthest out object reached the closer in object first and the force it felt was not equal to the current distance of the emitting object but the distance from the emission point.  This caused unequal forces on each object.  It seemed to violation the of conservatoin of momentum, unless space itself was involved in the application of the force, the momentum transfer via space, which must be the case with propagating gravity waves.

 

I googled this and found some debates.  There were discussions about how it can't be that gravity is pulling toward a vacated location and with some explanations that seemed flawed to me. But I was looking for a discussion of unequal gravitational forces that would be felt by two objects due to distance and speed. Even if you let time dilate, you can't make this force instantaneous.

Edited May 24, 2019 by RodneyBelieves

[Dubbelosix]

I have a question about the discovery of gravity waves. You sound like a good source of info.

 

When light propagates away from its emitting object, the object moves on from the emission point, but the gravity waves point forever back to that spot, frozen in time, unless bounced or lensed.  I would assume that the discovery of gravity waves causes one to wonder how gravity works.

 

It's quite simple... gravity is the space and time around you, nothing more nothing less. If water was a vacuum, then its ripples on a surface is a very... simple, maybe not entirely correct analogy, but it works in theory. Space is not nothing.

[Vmedvil2]

I tend to agree with you about this dubbel it is a great possibility that Dark Energy or H is caused from Spin of the universe it would explain how the universe is able to expand without a known source of input energy at accelerating rates, it just spins at a constant rate and as it expands it has a different value of velocity of expansion based on the radius of the universe just like different sized tops, which would explain accelerating expansion. Have you ever tried to calculate a ω value based on Energy of Expansion and radius of the universe.

Edited May 27, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

I tend to agree with you about this dubbel it is a great possibility that Dark Energy or H is caused from Spin of the universe it would explain how the universe is able to expand without a known source of input energy at accelerating rates, it just spins at a constant rate and as it expands it has a different value of velocity of expansion based on the radius of the universe just like different sized tops, which would explain accelerating expansion. Have you ever tried to calculate a ω value based on Energy of Expansion and radius of the universe.

 

No, not at a constant rate this is where many people get mixed up. A spinning universe decays as a linear expansion takes over.... hence why I have said a number of times, dark flow phenomenon could be taken as the residual primordial spin. The idea it was spinning much faster in the past, than it is today... in fact, it is rotating so slow, that there is no axis radiation background. The so-called ''axis of evil'' is misnomer, there is no axis in the late cosmology because it is no longer spinning fast enough.

[RodneyBelieves]

It's quite simple... gravity is the space and time around you, nothing more nothing less. If water was a vacuum, then its ripples on a surface is a very... simple, maybe not entirely correct analogy, but it works in theory. Space is not nothing.

 

 

 

So the ripples are just an echo of the action from the source but no real force? Even waves on water exert a force on anything in the water.  A distant disturbance creates the wave and the water propagates the energy.  When the wave arrives at the object it pushes it up and down and maybe away from the original disturbance.  It's the water that moves the object within it.  I asked if gravity waves are the source of the exertion force, pulling the object in its path back toward the location of emission.  If so, for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction.  If the object has moved away then what is exerting the opposite reaction?  Space itself?  If so, and pulling back toward a location, and not the emitting object, I am struggling to see how obits are stable.  Are you saying that gravity waves are just a remnant of emission of force but do nothing to the things it touches?  So how did it trigger the detectors and how were they able to triangulate back to the very spot where it came from? The emitting object has long since moved away.  The light that followed the detected waves was pointing back to the same spot where the emitting object no longer was, may not even exist anymore. 

 

I am just wondering if we have ever seen an object moving under gravity toward where the gravity emitting object used to be?  We were always taught to think of the force of gravity as acting on the two objects simultaneously, but gravity waves moving at the speed of light seems to call this into question. It does not seem simple.

Edited June 3, 2019 by RodneyBelieves