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

The Universe is rotating

128 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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?

Because the galaxies themselves are not flying away from us through space.

It is the actual fabric of space between us that is enlarging. The galaxies are being carried away, they are not moving away on their own.

Since the further you look out there, the more space there is between you and the object you're looking at, the further galaxies are moving away faster because there is more space to expand between us and them.

The expansion is, IOW, cumulative over distance (of course, like any expansion is.)

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

III. WHERE DID THE BLUE SPECTRAL SHIFT INSIDE THE UNIVERSE COME FROM?

The universe expands at the approximate speed of radiation (270 000 km/sec.) and, according to the Doppler effect, all objects in the universe should have a red spectral shift, but it is not the case. It seems that certain objects (galaxies) do not observe the laws of physics and move to the opposite direction from the forces, caused by the explosion of a mini-bubble (which also fails to observe the same laws).

It would, nevertheless, all fit in just fine, if only these events were equally represented in the volume of the universe, but they are not. These events are related only to our “close” neighbours, and those objects that are further away, all the way to the distance of 13.7 billion of light-years, they have a red spectral shift and are distancing from us. I just can’t believe how they didn’t come up with an idea of placing some black hole in our vicinity, to make it responsible for this “mischief” and tell us horrible stories about it swallowing us all at the end.

It is interesting that there is quite a number of galaxies that have a blue spectral shift; the data say of no less than 100 and as much as 7 000 of them. They seem to be orderly placed and not randomly scattered around, which can be seen on the enclosed map.

„Mapa galaksija sa plavim pomakom u spektru“ look on the internet.

When another galaxies move towards our galaxy, there are two outcomes:

1. the movement takes place on the same direction (on the same part of the curve),

2. the movement takes place on some other direction.

In the first scenario, the outcome is a collision and in the other one, a bypass of the objects. For the objects on the same direction to have significantly different speeds, there should be some reasons for it, and here they are not. If one of them would be size, then the dwarf galaxies that exist between the two would collide sooner, but they either move away or have a
status quo
. The objects moving on the same direction have a mild red spectral shift because of the circular trajectory. The objects moving on the curve show that the objects are moving away sideways one from another, even though they have the same speed, as if they would not have the same movement direction.

Bypass is a realistic option because the movement directions of these galaxies have different speeds. The speed increases when the objects further from the centre of the universe are been observed (the speeds in the centre of the universe range from 200 to 300 km/sec. and less, and the most distant objects have the speed of 270 000 km/sec.). Andromeda has a negative speed (it is moving towards us), ranged from -300 to -2 000 km/sec., depending on the different measurement results that have been presented: M90: -383 km/sec.; M86: -340 km/sec.; M98: -142 km/sec. It means that Andromeda is a bit further from us towards the direction of the universe’s surface.

After a certain distance it is impossible to register a blue shift, although it has been confirmed beyond all doubts that moving towards, bypassing and colliding of galaxies must definitely result with a negative speed, i.e., a blue spectral shift (approaching of some galaxies to other ones).

Look on the internet:
„Interacting Galaxies Hubble Space Telescope“

Therefore, a blue spectral shift is a common law of nature, significantly present in the universe because of the rotation of the whole volume. The objects closer to the centre rotate relatively slowly and the objects in the outer area of the universe rotate at the fastest speed. The speed of rotation increases in the direction from the centre of the universal volume towards outside, or decreases in the opposite direction, i.e., from the universal surface towards its centre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Obviously, the galaxies are moving themselves. Some are just moving through space, others are orbiting within huge clusters of galaxies (our galaxy is itself a member of a smallish cluster called "the Local Group," which includes the Andromeda galaxy among several others.)

The orbital motins of these galaxies around the cluster's center of gravity causes various members of a cluster to be moving toward us while other members of the same cluster are moving away from us. The center of gravity of the cluster may be moving toward us as well (or us toward them.)

There is nothing out of the ordinary about a galaxy being blue-shifted.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

Obviously, the galaxies are moving themselves. Some are just moving through space, others are orbiting within huge clusters of galaxies (our galaxy is itself a member of a smallish cluster called "the Local Group," which includes the Andromeda galaxy among several others.)

The orbital motins of these galaxies around the cluster's center of gravity causes various members of a cluster to be moving toward us while other members of the same cluster are moving away from us. The center of gravity of the cluster may be moving toward us as well (or us toward them.)

There is nothing out of the ordinary about a galaxy being blue-shifted.

Harte

You need to attack the rotation of the universe and not go in her favor. Use the explosion of the universe by the Big Bang. How gravity works blue shift at speeds of 270,000 km / sec to the outside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

There is no "rotation of the universe."

Both this bogus rotation and the high speeds of regression have already been explained to you.

Do you have some sort of mental block?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taniwha

Because the galaxies themselves are not flying away from us through space.

It is the actual fabric of space between us that is enlarging. The galaxies are being carried away, they are not moving away on their own.

Since the further you look out there, the more space there is between you and the object you're looking at, the further galaxies are moving away faster because there is more space to expand between us and them.

The expansion is, IOW, cumulative over distance (of course, like any expansion is.)

Harte

You speak in a familiar way about expansion yet what is really known of it? In other words the observations of expansion seem incomplete. So its easy to wonder what is expansion expanding into? And what causes it? Will it reach a limit? Will it fracture and break? Is it self creating?

Im curious of any theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

You don't seem so curious to me. link

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taniwha

You don't seem so curious to me. link

Harte

Of course needless to say we dont know but its alwAys fun to speculate :tu:!

Edited by taniwha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

There is no "rotation of the universe."

Both this bogus rotation and the high speeds of regression have already been explained to you.

Do you have some sort of mental block?

Harte

You've probably noticed that this forum topic is not a quiz from the conventional knowledge of the science of the universe.

Open mind new insights.

These were easier introductory topics. Below are harder to read, which is located outside of the known pathways and really spells may be authentic.

Certainly originality will not be questionable.

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

You've probably noticed that this forum topic is not a quiz from the conventional knowledge of the science of the universe.

Open mind new insights.

These were easier introductory topics. Below are harder to read, which is located outside of the known pathways and really spells may be authentic.

Certainly originality will not be questionable.

It is perfectly fine to question mainstream scientific theories.

In fact, I would say (as someone who earns their paycheque as a physics professor at a university) it is almost certain that most mainstream scientific theories are incomplete or incorrect.

BUT if you want to criticize mainstream theories you have to at least understand the mainstream theory.

It is ABUNDANTLY evident from your posts that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND the big bang theory.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the claims that you attribute to the big bang theory are, in fact, misrepresentations of that theory.

So you can question the validity of the big bang theory.

You can propose your own theory for the origin of the Universe.

What you CANNOT do is present your own theory as being superior to the mainstream theory whilst constantly misrepresenting or misinterpreting the statements of the mainstream theory.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

You've probably noticed that this forum topic is not a quiz from the conventional knowledge of the science of the universe.

Open mind new insights.

To you, "open mind" means acceptance of statements that are known to be erroneous. Such as "the universe is rotating after all."

Where's your thread about the "fact" that cats are snails?

Are you not "open minded" enough?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

Galileo said:
IS ROTATING, AFTER ALL.
Let's move on.

THE CREATION CONTINUED ON THE EIGHTH DAY

Already at the end of the previous millennium, a research to find a spontaneous disintegration of proton ingloriously failed. At the end of the research it had been stated that a spontaneous disintegration of proton does not take place within the range of 10
33
and that it is more likely to happen at the order of magnitude of 10
99
, which is impossible to verify.

Something interesting and similar takes place when a star explodes. When objects that are 1.4 and more the size of our Sun explode, the accepted term is that an implosion or a collapse of a star took place, under the influence of the gravitational force (at that moment, it equals to 10 masses of the Sun). Accepting the theories which have found the solutions outside physics needs to have serious reasons. Not before 2005./2006. did these reasons become obvious. During an explosion, an object (a star) loses a large part of its mass, which needed to be compensated. That was accomplished by introducing black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs (by no means red or brown ones!).

A big problem to this subject occurred when the following opinion took place, that matter was created all at once and that it was an unchangeable and finite quantity forever.

Even before the construction of an accelerator, the scientists found out that a disintegration of matter occurs, because they were regularly recording a muon landing from the universe to a laboratory (a muon is a part of a particle, i.e., of a proton, which has a negative charge within a generally positive particle). When colliders appeared, we saw and we can still see how and to what particles matter disintegrates, i.e., how protons, neutrons and electrons disintegrate. There is no doubt whatsoever that a matter disintegrates during the collisions at very high speeds. At that time, the visible matter turns into an invisible one. With a few short delays, which are called the particles, it turns into an elementary matter.

A problem occurs when we don’t want to integrate this knowledge into the already-existing weak theories, which are more inclined to look for the answers in the fairy tales outside the frame of physics. We know very well which percussive forces are created when any star explodes, and yet, we don’t want to consider the results obtained by the colliders as a correct interpretation of the event, just as if it were two different worlds involved. There is an endless quantity of high-value collisions within an explosion, similar or even the same as they occur in the supercollider, and yet again, we continue to interpret the loss of matter and mass outside the frame of physics, rather than through the disintegration of matter. It is clear now why did those stories of the mini black holes appearing in the CERN institute come out; if it was not possible to create mini black holes in these unimaginably strong collisions, how can then exist their larger counterparts – and the conditions for their appearance are almost the same as in the so-called Big Bang.

The period before the colliders’ technology and thus obtained knowledge have appeared can be understood and justified, but by no means can it be done the same way after the knowledge of the possibility for a mass to disappear.

The type 1a stellar explosions need to be related to the stellar objects of a lesser illumination, which are no dwarfs either, because the loss of mass should not be replaced with something that doesn’t exist (there are white dwarfs, which are just the regular stellar objects, the stars in formation), and it is obvious at the larger explosions.

The loss of matter should be replaced the way Fred Hoyle suggested the particles are created, which has, by the way, been confirmed by the sub-atomic research. The formation itself should be related to the quantity of disintegrated matter (he suggested one, and only on Earth billions and billions disappear daily, which has been confirmed by the muon landings from the universe, due to the charge opposition between Earth and muons).

The disintegration is the end and the formation of matter is the beginning of the process of the fundamental matter circulation in the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

Galileo said:
IS ROTATING, AFTER ALL.
Let's move on.

If you want to conclude your argument with an appeal to authority, might I suggest you choose an authority whose ideas of cosmology are not hundreds of years out of date?

A big problem to this subject occurred when the following opinion took place, that matter was created all at once and that it was an unchangeable and finite quantity forever.

Yes, that would be a big problem... if any rational scientist held that belief.

May I just refer to my previous post, except now replace ``big bang theory'' with ``quantum field theory''?

(a muon is a part of a particle, i.e., of a proton, which has a negative charge within a generally positive particle).

... So I guess it is too much effort to just look up what a muon actually is?

Look, there are only 17 elementary particles in the Standard Model. If you want to pretend to be knowledgeable on the subject, you could at least understand what these particles are and how they interact.

Edited by sepulchrave
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

If you want to conclude your argument with an appeal to authority, might I suggest you choose an authority whose ideas of cosmology are not hundreds of years out of date?

Yes, that would be a big problem... if any rational scientist held that belief.

May I just refer to my previous post, except now replace ``big bang theory'' with ``quantum field theory''?

... So I guess it is too much effort to just look up what a muon actually is?

Look, there are only 17 elementary particles in the Standard Model. If you want to pretend to be knowledgeable on the subject, you could at least understand what these particles are and how they interact.

It will later topic dedicated to the atom. Of course, from a different angle of observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

Setting new topics not conclude the discussion of the previous topics. About all set topics can be discussed simultaneously or about one. I would be glad to evidence (not theories) halt "Rotation of the Universe as the only reality," or to contribute to its development. All topics are beyond conventional views on the Universe, but all follow the existing evidence and sightings in the Universe.

The topics that follow:

Mars & Life creation in Universe

What are the dimensions of destruction and creation in the Universe?

How old is it of Earth?

The forbidden article: Gravity and anti-gravity

The Oort cloud

Do we know all about the Solar system

What if we really register the waves coming in from the past?

Promatranje kvazara kroz vrtnju

The Atoms – what are they?

Zašto CERN nije uspio?

Why is the Universe dark?

Zašto je Svemir tako hladan?

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

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.

If it has no center what is it rotating around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

If it has no center what is it rotating around?

Rotation bigger mass has its own complexity. The outer surface of the base and the interior space can be adjusted. In these relationships do not have a classic center than the volume that rotates at low speed. "270,000 km / sec in the contiguous zone is reduced to 100-200 km / sec in the central zone volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Rotation bigger mass has its own complexity. The outer surface of the base and the interior space can be adjusted. In these relationships do not have a classic center than the volume that rotates at low speed. "270,000 km / sec in the contiguous zone is reduced to 100-200 km / sec in the central zone volume.

Does it or does it not rotate around a central axis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

If it has no center what is it rotating around?

Exactly the problem I have with the hypothesis.

Something tells me this isn't going to matter one iota though (people believe what they want to believe despite any annoying facts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Setting new topics not conclude the discussion of the previous topics. About all set topics can be discussed simultaneously or about one. I would be glad to evidence (not theories) halt "Rotation of the Universe as the only reality," or to contribute to its development. All topics are beyond conventional views on the Universe, but all follow the existing evidence and sightings in the Universe.

The topics that follow:

Mars & Life creation in Universe

What are the dimensions of destruction and creation in the Universe?

How old is it of Earth?

The forbidden article: Gravity and anti-gravity

The Oort cloud

Do we know all about the Solar system

What if we really register the waves coming in from the past?

Promatranje kvazara kroz vrtnju

The Atoms – what are they?

Za¨to CERN nije uspio?

Why is the Universe dark?

Za¨to je Svemir tako hladan?

Weitter Duckss,

by all means start new topics but I really advise against doing so all in the same thread, heaven knows it is difficult enough to follow your topic when it is restricted to a single subject. If you post multiple topics in the same thread it is likely to rapidly deteriorate into a virtually impossible mess of posts and ideas.

I have split your new topic, Mars & Life creation in Universe, into a separate thread which can be found HERE.

Please also note that this is an English language forum, please post only in English.

Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taniwha

If it has no center what is it rotating around?

Rotation could be invisible like expansion couldnt it? Are we really embedded deep within spacetime or are we at the very front of it. Where is the centre of any moment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Rotation could be invisible like expansion couldnt it? Are we really embedded deep within spacetime or are we at the very front of it. Where is the centre of any moment?

The definition of rotation is to turn around a central point. No central point no rotation. Whether we could detect the rotation is unclear to me. I think Einstein would say yes, Mach no
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

Does it or does it not rotate around a central axis?

In this case, external rotation creates what is at the center of galaxies vice versa, due to the rotation center of the galaxy formed. The central axis but there is no primary importance as in galaxies. The axis can be assumed from the images of the universe that is horizontally elongated at the equator due to rotation, and veritikalno flattened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

In this case, external rotation creates what is at the center of galaxies vice versa, due to the rotation center of the galaxy formed. The central axis but there is no primary importance as in galaxies. The axis can be assumed from the images of the universe that is horizontally elongated at the equator due to rotation, and veritikalno flattened.

You got a link to these images?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

The definition of rotation is to turn around a central point. No central point no rotation. Whether we could detect the rotation is unclear to me. I think Einstein would say yes, Mach no

Due to different materials distributed in space center (axis) must have a rotation, and rotation of the body due to a direction of movement.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.