Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Weitter Duckss

The Universe is rotating

128 posts in this topic

Even t Even though I was certain we had grasped the modern technology of our telescopes, it seems not to be the case.

By observing the celestial objects the astronomers found out that a red spectral shift increases with the distance, i.e., the objects increase the distance from us faster and faster. Even Mr. Hubble stated that the universe expands in accordance to his constant, which has been, as time passes, continuously increasing. The object like Andromeda, which is relatively close to us, moves 330 km/sec. faster than us, according to the measurements from the end of the last millennium, or 2 000 km/sec., according to the measurements from this millennium. Both measurements were conducted by the same institution. With the distance, the speed is also increasing, therefore the most distant objects – more than 13 billion of light-years away – increase their distance by the speed of 270 000 km/sec., almost the speed of light (9/10). The universe is, therefore, expanding faster and faster.

Here, some problems occur. These the most distant objects that move almost at the speed of light are not in the present time, but these are the objects that were there more than 13 billion of light-years ago! it should actually mean that these objects were moving at that huge speed 13 billion of years ago and that the objects from the recent past move only 300 – 2 000 km/sec. faster than us. It is obvious that the spectroscopy on these telescopes lies when it claims that celestial objects were moving much faster earlier in the past and that now, in comparison, they almost don’t move. The reason for it is the Hubble constant, which does not refer to the past, but to the present and future time.

I am more inclined to trust the telescopes and spectrography, after all, because they state facts. These facts don’t fit into the scientific theories, which are, besides, only the constructs of mind. To set things right, we must go back to the time of Isaac Newton, the time when there was not so many far-fetched theories.

A rotating object has its movement direction (planets, stars) and that direction is inside the next bigger rotating object (galaxy), which also has a movement direction inside the universe, as a result of rotation… The rotation of universe satisfies the results of the observations: the objects closer to us move slower than the more distant objects, with the most distant objects being the fastest. That is a reflection of the relations inside galaxies – nothing new about it. The telescopes are not designed to foretell the past but to estimate the distance and speed of the celestial objects.

It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth. Let’s assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?

Background radiation arrives from the distance of 13.7 billion of light-years. These data are the same as the distance of the most distant space objects that have been observed. Background radiation arrives from the end of the Universe.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When we observe distant cosmic objects, and note the relative speed they have, we are actually measuring the difference in the speed of the expansion of the universe today from the time that object existed.

It is actually us who is moving away from what we observe because, as you note, the object is being viewed in our past and so it must be assumed to be 'at rest'. It is the distant object which is the frame of reference from which our relative velocity (or rather, the rate of expansion of the modern universe) is measured.

Also, while I use the word 'moving' we are actually talking about the expansion of space which is not really the same as the independent motion between two objects.

And welcome to UM, btw. Hope you enjoy it here.

Edited by Leonardo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rotation of universe satisfies the results of the observations: the objects closer to us move slower than the more distant objects, with the most distant objects being the fastest.

A rotating universe would presume a center and axis of rotation. It would also presume a preferred direction of space. For instance, if we looked in one direction the universe would look different than if we looked in some other direction.

If we looked toward the 'center' of rotation, galaxies would seem to be moving away from us more slowly than the galaxies we see in the opposite direction. In fact, there is no preferred direction in space. Space is expanding isotropically, uniformly in all directions, including the acceleration of the expansion.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth. Let’s assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?

I don't think you fully understand the Big Bang Theory.

The background radiation is everywhere in the Universe, and always has been. The matter in the Universe is (reasonably, and on the intergalactic scale) evenly distributed throughout the Universe, and always has been.

Incidentally, the possibility of a rotating Universe has been intensively studied since Kurt Godel showed in 1949, with the Godel metric, that it was possible for backwards time-travel in a rotating Universe (or rather, there existed closed, time-like curves, see here for all the beautiful technical details).

As StarMountainKid points out, there is no observational evidence that our Universe is rotating, and the currently accepted mathematical description of our Universe follows the Freidmann-Lamaitre-Robertson-Walker metric (see here for all the beautiful technical details).

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And welcome to UM, btw. Hope you enjoy it here.

Thanks for the welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rotating universe would presume a center and axis of rotation.

Globular star also has no center, and rotates.

We carry out observations of the broader center of the universe. In the center are small and the speed increases towards the end of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Globular star also has no center, and rotates.

What do you mean with "Globular star"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you fully understand the Big Bang Theory.

The background radiation is everywhere in the Universe, and always has been

In the next few articles I will try, along with proof of rotation of the universe and to point out the shortcomings of the Big Bang. However, matter and radiation had to start from the same point (400,000 by the so-called big bang) and had constant different speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean with "Globular star"?

Cluster. Sorry, there will be a "little" problem with understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i knew it!

*glues ornaments onto shelves*

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cluster. Sorry, there will be a "little" problem with understanding.

Ok.

Globular star cluster also has no center, and rotates.

This is an incorrect statement. As we are able to measure star distances we are able to determine the geometric

center of globular star clusters. In addition, globular star clusters are subject to gravitation effects and some have

a black whole in the center. Also, we would not name an object globular if it would not be of a globular shape, means

with an geometric center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In the next few articles I will try, along with proof of rotation of the universe and to point out the shortcomings of the Big Bang.

However, matter and radiation had to start from the same point (400,000 by the so-called big bang) and had constant

different speeds.

Can you please be a little bit more accurate with your posts in general? 400.000 of what?

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when people try to talk mathematical concepts in plain english. A three-dimensional object always rotates around an imaginary line called a rotation axis. If the axis is within the body, and passes through its center of mass the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please be a little bit more accurate with your posts in general? 400.000 of what?

400,000 years after theBig Bang when the universe began to brighten or when the first light able to be separated from the compact mass. It is time zero point of the time to the Big Bang, matter is traveling faster than the radiation that is now coming as background radiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when people try to talk mathematical concepts in plain english. A three-dimensional object always rotates around an imaginary line called a rotation axis. If the axis is within the body, and passes through its center of mass the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin.

When you rotate a drop of water on the ISS station she has no center. In order to speed small galaxies in the center of it is not pronounced. Speed ​​around the center are 100 to 200 km / sec, it increases when the distance increases. The farthest and fastest 270,000 km / sec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the next few articles I will try, along with proof of rotation of the universe and to point out the shortcomings of the Big Bang. However, matter and radiation had to start from the same point (400,000 by the so-called big bang) and had constant different speeds.

[Emphasis mine] I the bolded statement pertains to the aspects of your theory? Because it is not part of the Big Bang theory.

In BBT, the matter and the radiation are, and always have been, overlapping in the same physical space.

400,000 years after theBig Bang when the universe began to brighten or when the first light able to be separated from the compact mass. It is time zero point of the time to the Big Bang, matter is traveling faster than the radiation that is now coming as background radiation.

Again, can I assume this is according to your theory? Because in the BBT matter and radiation never ``separated'' in a spatial sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

II. WHERE IS THAT SINGULARITY?

Singularity is a place where it all came from, the place where the laws of physics are not observed and the place that is not too far, but also not so close.

It is not here without a good reason – on the contrary, it serves to fulfil a large gap that could not be explained by the Big Bang theory, and besides, it fitted in it very well.

If we were to have a telescope powerful enough, or some other measurement device, we would have been able to see the very beginning of all, the universe hatching out of its shell and developing nicely because of the inflation force and, some 13 billion of years we would have what we have now.

Besides those telescopes on the surface of Earth, there are the following devices: telescopes Hubble and Spitzer, satellites COBE, WMAP, Planck, etc. But, no matter how modern, powerful, good they are, with ever improving options of gathering data, we still have not gone farther than “400 000 years” after the so-called Big Bang. It is obvious that we will not improve already achieved results or get closer to the singularity, no matter how much we invest in new devices and technologies. What is wrong, where is the mistake?

By looking into the space, we get the results, expressed in the measurement units of length and we don’t establish history. How is it then possible that, when we register the waves approaching from the distance of 13.7 billion of light-years, we create history based on that fact, except for knowing the distance and that the objects that emit radiation were there that much time ago, which points us to the deduction of the universe’s age? Now we can see on that distance and to see even further, we need to change (frequently changing) opinion of the universe as an isolated unit, as well as that of the length being a distance from the observation point to the observed object. That means that on that distance exist the objects which emit radiation needed for the same to be observed.

If there were a singularity, where would it be, to the south, north, east, west, above our heads or, to the opposite, beneath our feet? Earth is a conditional sphere; how is then possible to see one and the only point, named singularity, from all of its surface points? What, in that case, represent other points that are sideways beneath or above it, or opposite to it – what is there? Our devices can’t see that because we still can’t bend the direction of observation in that way that we can observe forwards and backwards at the same time. They see the universe as it is. The results we have are the presentation of the universe in real measurement units of length, i.e., 13.7 billion of light-years is a distance from the observation point to the observed object.

That object emits radiation all this time and, according to photographs and insight into the universe, it can be concluded that it will continue emitting for the next 13 billion of light-years, just as it had already been emitting before, for as much time as has already passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there were a singularity, where would it be, to the south, north, east, west, above our heads or, to the opposite, beneath our feet? Earth is a conditional sphere; how is then possible to see one and the only point, named singularity, from all of its surface points?

I would say that the cosmic microwave background radiation is the oldest 'light' that can be seen, before this the universe was opaque. The other point is, we must realize that we are inside the Big Bang. This is why the CMB is everywhere in all directions. If one could 'see' the singularity of the BB, that singualrity would also be everywhere, it could be seen in all directions we look, because we were inside the singularity when it existed, so to say.

The singularity was the universe, not something separate from the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that the cosmic microwave background radiation is the oldest 'light' that can be seen, before this the universe was opaque. The other point is, we must realize that we are inside the Big Bang. This is why the CMB is everywhere in all directions. If one could 'see' the singularity of the BB, that singualrity would also be everywhere, it could be seen in all directions we look, because we were inside the singularity when it existed, so to say.

The singularity was the universe, not something separate from the universe.

Due to the expansion of the universe or space inflates the size of the universe 400,000 years after the big bang is less than today. If they then started radiation and matter was faster than inflation or space she can practically arrive, she must go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The singularity was the universe, not something separate from the universe.

Isnt that the same as saying that the universe is the singularity? Isnt that the same as saying that the centre of the universe is the universe itself? It maybe then that the singularity is what is expanding and everything else is contained within it and not without it.

What i mean is, being unable to assume with pin point precision any location for a singularity other than to say it was the beginning, we might as easily assume that the assumed edge of the universe might in fact be the universal centre, of which everything else is gravitating towards, not away from.

Therefore to observe the universe as a singularity all you have to do is move ahead of its edge far enough that you are able to percieve it as no more than a prick of potential energy.

Further to add it might not be impossible that the singularity infact rotates.

Edited by taniwha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang Theory does have it's own problems, but you need to be fairly familiar with the theory in order to talk intelligently about the problems.

Apparently.

Harte

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isnt that the same as saying that the universe is the singularity? Isnt that the same as saying that the centre of the universe is the universe itself? It maybe then that the singularity is what is expanding and everything else is contained within it and not without it.

That's pretty much what I meant, except that the original singularity no longer exists. Although it can be said that the singularity is what is expanding, as the present universe is the result of that singularity.

What i mean is, being unable to assume with pin point precision any location for a singularity other than to say it was the beginning, we might as easily assume that the assumed edge of the universe might in fact be the universal centre, of which everything else is gravitating towards, not away from.

In a sense I agree with you. It could be said space is expanding toward the 'edge' of the universe, which is that space itself. I suppose that 'edge' or boundary (if it exists) could be conceptualized as its center in a way. Although this 'center' is everywhere on this hypothetical boundary.

If the topology of the universe is flat, then its volume is mathematically supposed to be infinite. I'm not sure though that a universe that has had a beginning can really be infinite. I think the problem is trying to imagine a picture of a flat universe, or the problem is my lack of understanding, as Harte says in his above post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Big Bang Theory does have it's own problems, but you need to be fairly familiar with the theory in order to talk intelligently about the problems.

Apparently.

Harte

But just as interesting, is the speed of the distant galaxies. The further into the past we observe the faster the galaxies are. How can the past be observed to travel faster than the present if acceleration is a universal constant?

It seems to me anyway that calculations show (prove) that the present is slower than the past making the milkyway the slowest of them all.

Is this a simple illusion that I cant understand? Or is the speed of light changing maybe?

Edited by taniwha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang Theory does have it's own problems,

Harte

The expansion of the universe is 270,000 km / sec over 13 billion years in all directions, according to the Big Bang. Radiation keep moving 300,000 km / sec. You go ahead and Radiation little return? To cover the difference of more than one billion light years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But just as interesting, is the speed of the distant galaxies. The further into the past we observe the faster the galaxies are. How can the past be observed to travel faster than the present if acceleration is a universal constant?

It seems to me anyway that calculations show (prove) that the present is slower than the past making the milkyway the slowest of them all.

Is this a simple illusion that I cant understand? Or is the speed of light changing maybe?

As I explained (or attempted to explain) in a previous post, the difference in relative velocities observed of distant galaxies in no way suggests that galaxies (or space) moved (or expanded) 'faster' the further back into the past we look.

Our frame of reference is of being 'at rest', yes, but this is exactly what Relativity would suggest.

The apparent acceleration we observe as we look back further into time is a direct result of the continued expansion of space, which necessitates that objects in that space must travel away from each other ever faster over time. Thus it is we who are moving faster than those ancient galaxies, but from our relativistic frame of reference it appears to be those ancient galaxies that are moving faster.

Edited by Leonardo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.