Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Just thinking on 18/06/2021 15:37:03
-
I have a theory of why the universe is expanding. Just about all the objects that have been viewed in the visible universe have the signature of the redshift this is the only way that science has to verify the ever expanding and accelerating depths of its age. There have been many theories regarding why and the latest reason proposed is the existence of dark matter. Well, I have another possible course for this apparent expansion. As we know all planetary bodies are rotating all of the moons are rotating even the sun is turning before us. This phenomenon is taking place throughout our galaxy even the galaxy its self is rotating. This obvious motion can be seen throughout the entire universe by the spiral arms of our neighboring galaxies that are saying look at me spin. So I have visualized this rotating motion not only as it is within the boundary of the universe but I propose that the universe its self is rotating generating the necessary centrifugal force that may be expanding our horizon. It is believed that the distant galaxies are traveling faster and faster as they progress to the distant depths of what can be seen and this fact is well in line with the forces that apply with centrifugal force as the further out objects are accelerated faster to the outer sphere. I welcome debate to this theory that I propose. A rotating universe.
-
I have a theory of why the universe is expanding.
The topic was moved because it was not a question about accepted science, but rather, well, a new idea.
That said, welcome to TNS!
the ever expanding and accelerating depths of its age.
It is not ever-accelerating. The onset of acceleration is relatively recent and the majority of the history of the universe has had sufficient energy density for a deceleration of the expansion rate. A linear expansion rate of 1/T would be no acceleration or deceleration at all, but the curve is not linear. Fairly close, but no cigar.
As we know all planetary bodies are rotating all of the moons are rotating even the sun is turning before us. This phenomenon is taking place throughout our galaxy even the galaxy its self is rotating. This obvious motion can be seen throughout the entire universe by the spiral arms of our neighboring galaxies that are saying look at me spin.
This is expected. It would be an incredible coincidence for any object to happen to have exactly zero angular momentum, so pretty much everything rotates. I cannot think of an exception. But at the larger scales, the net angular momentum per mass goes down since all the objects rotate in random directions and tend to cancel each other out if added together. Superclusters have barely noticeable angular momentum to the point that I would not be able to say which way any of them turns.
So I have visualized this rotating motion not only as it is within the boundary of the universe but I propose that the universe its self is rotating
Finite angular speed of an infinitely spread out mass would result in faster than light motion of most of that mass. This cannot be, therefore the only way the universe could be rotating is if it was a finite thing, which contradicts the cosmological principle upon which most models rest.
generating the necessary centrifugal force that may be expanding our horizon.
That would be expansion expressed as motion through space, which has different obervables than does the metric expansion of space. This would thus contradict empirical observations. There would be an obvious center of the universe if it rotated about a preferred location. The expansion for one would all be in two dimensions and not at all on the axis of rotation. This is not what we see.
-
I have a theory of why the universe is expanding.
The topic was moved because it was not a question about accepted science, but rather, well, a new idea.
That said, welcome to TNS!
the ever expanding and accelerating depths of its age.
It is not ever-accelerating. The onset of acceleration is relatively recent and the majority of the history of the universe has had sufficient energy density for a deceleration of the expansion rate. A linear expansion rate of 1/T would be no acceleration or deceleration at all, but the curve is not linear. Fairly close, but no cigar.
As we know all planetary bodies are rotating all of the moons are rotating even the sun is turning before us. This phenomenon is taking place throughout our galaxy even the galaxy its self is rotating. This obvious motion can be seen throughout the entire universe by the spiral arms of our neighboring galaxies that are saying look at me spin.
This is expected. It would be an incredible coincidence for any object to happen to have exactly zero angular momentum, so pretty much everything rotates. I cannot think of an exception. But at the larger scales, the net angular momentum per mass goes down since all the objects rotate in random directions and tend to cancel each other out if added together. Superclusters have barely noticeable angular momentum to the point that I would not be able to say which way any of them turns.
So I have visualized this rotating motion not only as it is within the boundary of the universe but I propose that the universe its self is rotating
Finite angular speed of an infinitely spread out mass would result in faster than light motion of most of that mass. This cannot be, therefore the only way the universe could be rotating is if it was a finite thing, which contradicts the cosmological principle upon which most models rest.
generating the necessary centrifugal force that may be expanding our horizon.
That would be expansion expressed as motion through space, which has different obervables than does the metric expansion of space. This would thus contradict empirical observations. There would be an obvious center of the universe if it rotated about a preferred location. The expansion for one would all be in two dimensions and not at all on the axis of rotation. This is not what we see.
There does appear to be a central point as all the background radiation appears to be evenly spread throughout the universe making it very likely that we are in fact at that very central point equal radiation and equal redshift in all directions.
-
The redshift indicates that the velocity of other galaxies is moving away from us in all directions at a very equal and constant rate regarding their distance from us.
-
There does appear to be a central point as all the background radiation appears to be evenly spread throughout the universe making it very likely that we are in fact at that very central point equal radiation and equal redshift in all directions
The background radiation can appear isotropic from any point in the universe.
The redshift indicates that the velocity of other galaxies is moving away from us in all directions at a very equal and constant rate regarding their distance from us.
Similarly, this is true of any galaxy. Relative to any given galaxy, the redshift of other galaxies as seen from an observer there would indicate that the velocity of other galaxies is moving away from them in all directions at a very equal and constant rate regarding their distance from them.
In both cases, Our location is not special.
-
Yes, I must say that I agree with you on that count as the limit of visible light and radiation may be only local to us as the edge of the universe if there is such a thing may well be at different distances in all directions from us. Having said all that my original post and theory do not subscribe to the earth being in the very center of the universe.
-
Heat moves from hot to cold but not from cold to hot. This mono direction of heat flow, will cool the original heat and thereby create a red shift affect, since cooler has a longer wavelength than hotter. If we attribute the universal red shift to only velocity and Doppler shift, instead of partially to the natural direction of heat flow, the universe will appear to expand faster than it is. Both affects can be occurring while the perception of expansion depends on the ratio.
Space is cold, so heat will naturally flow from all the warmer matter; stars and galaxies, toward the empty space between, where it cools and thereby red shifts. I would expect to see a red shift from all galaxies, due to constant heat loss into the space outside the galaxy. During the day the sun heats the earth but the earth does no cool the sun. During the night, the earth heats the space outside the atmosphere; hot to cold.
As a home experiment, you will need a device that measures IR; digital pyrometer. We will start with a pot of boiling water, place it on the counter, and watch the meter as it cools. As it cools, the IR wavelength will expand; red shift. Once it reaches room temperature; same as the space around it, it will stay at one IR wavelength; cosmic microwave background.
This experiment could be used to create a good magic trick. We tell everyone we have seen a new galaxy that is projected onto a computer screen. It is really just a galaxy shade pot of boiling water in space. As it quickly cools, it would appear to move close to the speed of light; rapid cooling red shift that is attributed to the motion. It then that disappears into the darkness of the equilibrium background temperature.
This experiment was done with IR and heat, but it will also work with any wavelength, since all energy will move from hot to cold or in the direction of a red shift. Hot and/or energetic always has a shorter wavelength and cold or less energetic always has a longer wavelength. So hot to cold or energetic to less energetic will red shift.
The practical reason for the direction of hot to cold, is because a hotter energy signal can always find or induce unused energy levels within colder matter. I can take a gamma ray and absorb it with a pool of cold water. If we try to go from cold to hot, the hotter matter has its lowest energy levels saturated, so the cold energy photon has no room at the inn. Cold energy photons can hit the hot matter, but we will see no net affect. The affect is only seen in bulk going from hot to cold. For example, a light bulb can create a photoelectric affect on certain materials, but it will have little impact on another light bulb of the same caliber, since there are no available energy levels.
Inside a distant galaxy, the flow of energy from hotter to colder is less evident, than the flow of energy from hot to cold, between galaxies. Inside the galaxies, there are too many light bulbs or stars renewing the heat. We will see a much stronger red shift between the galaxies, in the cold space between where there are few renewable energy sources. The farther away a galaxy is from us, the more time the heat can find some energy level to occupy and transfer its heat; red shift will increase with distance. Space has only rarified matter, so the red shift is slow; long periods of time.
This topic is about the expansion of the universe as inferred from the red shift. I showed that a red shift will also the result from energy moving from hotter to cold; cooling universe and renewable heat sources; stars, that sends rarefied matter into cold space for a dilute heat capacity sink for further long term cooling. This bottoms out at the CMBR.
-
You certainly have made a very good argument against the redshift indicating the expansion of the universe. And thank you for a very detailed account but you must remember that it is the main reason that science still believes that the universe is expanding continuing the search for why. The latest being dark mater along with many other possibilities for this expansion. My original post is just another possibility for why and how if there is no expansion then why are they still looking for answers.
-
so heat will naturally flow from all the warmer matter; stars and galaxies, toward the empty space between, where it cools and thereby red shifts.
No
A photon going through space does not ordinarily "get cold".
That would be a breach of the conservation of energy.
And, because your whole idea is based on that, we know that your whole idea is wrong.
-
Hi everyone. I hope all is well.
To @Just thinking
I think Halc made a good point in an earlier post that you don't seem to have picked up on.
...If the universe is thought of as something that is spinning and expansion is thought of as being the result of centrifugal force then....
The expansion for one would all be in two dimensions and not at all on the axis of rotation. This is not what we see.
For example if you take a blob of dough (like the sort of thing a pizza chef makes his/her pizza base from) and spin it, then we can always identify an axis around which it is spun. The dough is indeed enlarged, stretched or spread out by what might be described as a centrifugal force perpendicular to that axis but it is NOT stretched out along that axis. So we end up a flat (almost 2-dimensional) circular pizza base and not a round (3-dimensional) football shape. If the dough (or the universe) is expected to spread out or enlarge in all 3 directions equally then the axis of rotation must be changed frequently. The conservation of angular momentum doesn't make this sort of change in spin easy to explain.
-
Hi everyone. I hope all is well.
To @Just thinking
I think Halc made a good point in an earlier post that you don't seem to have picked up on.
...If the universe is thought of as something that is spinning and expansion is thought of as being the result of centrifugal force then....
The expansion for one would all be in two dimensions and not at all on the axis of rotation. This is not what we see.
For example if you take a blob of dough (like the sort of thing a pizza chef makes his/her pizza base from) and spin it, then we can always identify an axis around which it is spun. The dough is indeed enlarged, stretched or spread out by what might be described as a centrifugal force perpendicular to that axis but it is NOT stretched out along that axis. So we end up a flat (almost 2-dimensional) circular pizza base and not a round (3-dimensional) football shape. If the dough (or the universe) is expected to spread out or enlarge in all 3 directions equally then the axis of rotation must be changed frequently. The conservation of angular momentum doesn't make this sort of change in spin easy to explain.
Hi, thank you for making such a good point. I am very pleased to be able to explain this pizza example you see when we look out at the universe whether naked eye or with the most powerful telescopes that are in use we see very very far into the universe. Now to explain your dilemma to my theory the true size of the universe is unknown due to the fact that we can only see out to the limit of time that light has been traveling so there is no reason to not think that there is much much more scale to the universe than we can ever see. Let's say the universe is a million times larger than we can see now we can have a very thick pizza just like the rings of Saturn that do have a thickness to them the universe maybe 100 billion light-years thick and many trillions of light-years in diameter now if this has any truth or possibility to it then you can see how we can see redshift in all directions. One more point to make is galaxies that are seen in the neutral and in the blueshift, this would explain the vertical direction sean within our reach of the available light. never forget the likely scale of our universe.
-
That's' a good point, but the thing is, we don't just measure the thickness, we measure the expansion.
And the expansion is the same in all directions ( to a very good precision)
Whereas, if it was created by centrifugal force, the expansion along the axis would be small (or, if we want to "stretch" the pizza analogy" - it would be negative.).
-
That's' a good point, but the thing is, we don't just measure the thickness, we measure the expansion.
And the expansion is the same in all directions ( to a very good precision)
Whereas, if it was created by centrifugal force, the expansion along the axis would be small (or, if we want to "stretch" the pizza analogy" - it would be negative.).
Let's say when the universe first started it may well have expanded into a sphere then as it started to rotate it become elliptical we may still see the remnants of this change plus the redshift that we see in its axis is not sean as a direction but as moving away. Moving away does not have to be moving directly away. When galaxies are observed no physical movement can be seen even stars in our own milky way can't be seen moving even though they are moving and changing. The movement of our nearest stars is like watching a snail's movement from a thousand miles away very hard to detect that is why the redshift is the only way to know that there is any movement at all.
-
as it started to rotate
I'm fairly sure that's impossible due to the conservation of angular momentum.
Can you explain what twisted it?
-
as it started to rotate
I'm fairly sure that's impossible due to the conservation of angular momentum.
Can you explain what twisted it?
Do you mean what started to rotate the universe sorry I did not understand your question?
-
Do you mean what started to rotate the universe
Yes.
Or rather, how is it possible?
-
Do you mean what started to rotate the universe
Yes.
Or rather, how is it possible?
Ok, I will try my best. This will be the biggest question to answer regarding my rotating universe. I can only speculate and attempt to answer this with multiple possibilities first we must remember that all of the bodies seen within the seeable universe are rotating what could rotate the whole picture well maybe many other pictures what has been described by the physicist as multiverses many universes reacting on each other. Another possibility is waveform the early globular universe may have had an uneven expanding structure which transforms this uneven out of balance structure to have collapsing uneven pressure in one direction a vertical movement if uneven on one side can reestablish itself into a horizontal movement generating rotation. Without going any further with more possibilities This is a big question to answer and can never be proven nor can be disproven just like all the mainstream possibilities put out there by mainstream science after all not all can be correct only one true answer out of many.
-
So, there's no reason why it would be spinning, and the evidence says it isn't.
-
So, there's no reason why it would be spinning, and the evidence says it isn't.
Well now I am really out of words and ideas you have beaten me with questions and I am out. You put up a good debate and I thank you for all your effort. The biggest questions demand the biggest of answers.
-
Do you mean what started to rotate the universe
Yes.
Or rather, how is it possible?
Ok, I will try my best. This will be the biggest question to answer regarding my rotating universe. I can only speculate and attempt to answer this with multiple possibilities first we must remember that all of the bodies seen within the seeable universe are rotating what could rotate the whole picture well maybe many other pictures what has been described by the physicist as multiverses many universes reacting on each other. Another possibility is waveform the early globular universe may have had an uneven expanding structure which transforms this uneven out of balance structure to have collapsing uneven pressure in one direction a vertical movement if uneven on one side can reestablish itself into a horizontal movement generating rotation. Without going any further with more possibilities This is a big question to answer and can never be proven nor can be disproven just like all the mainstream possibilities put out there by mainstream science after all not all can be correct only one true answer out of many.
If we assume gravity is a force, like the other three forces of nature, when mass lowers potential due to gravity, energy should be given off. Going from higher to lower potential releases energy. This gravity based energy output, if absorbed by other mass, should result in what appears to be an anti-gravity affect, if this theory is correct. The analogy is a hydrogen atom lowering energy level will give off a photon of energy. If this photon is absorbed by a different hydrogen atom, it will go to a higher energy level; mirrored action and reaction.
When stars begin to form from a cloud of dust, water crystals, and hydrogen gas, the mass will start to rotate, with the rotation creating a centrifugal force, the vector of which opposes the direction of gravity. The centrifugal force vector, created by the action/reaction rotation, goes in the opposite direction of gravity. There is a coordinated action and reaction, due to the exothermic output from gravity. The action of gravity explains the reaction rotation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies, since they all have the common feature of gravity acting and lowering potential.
Since these rotations do not always exactly cancel gravity, especially in the early formation of stars, the excess energy output, from the action of gravity, will go outward beyond the object. It will have an impact on larger and larger scale rotations, all the way to the universe. This explains why the universe appears to be expanding relative to the galaxies. They are isolated relative to each other by the action of their own gravity. Their constant exothermic output, due to constant star formation, is creating an antigravity affect onto each other. Dark energy may well be the exothermic output from gravity. Dark energy is not new but an old thing that was renamed. It is the exothermic output from the entire universe lowering gravitational potential.
Another way to look at this is via GR. If the action of gravity is causing space-time to contract as defined by GR, than the exothermic output, as gravity lowers potential energy, should cause space-time to expand, elsewhere. This is what dark energy does. While the centrifugal force created, which opposes gravity, seems to appear anywhere gravity acts. If we flush the toilet, gravity is lowering potential and rotation appears. The direction of rotation does not alter the direction and magnitude of the centrifugal force vector; still an anti-gravity in affect.
-
Do you mean what started to rotate the universe
Yes.
Or rather, how is it possible?
Ok, I will try my best. This will be the biggest question to answer regarding my rotating universe. I can only speculate and attempt to answer this with multiple possibilities first we must remember that all of the bodies seen within the seeable universe are rotating what could rotate the whole picture well maybe many other pictures what has been described by the physicist as multiverses many universes reacting on each other. Another possibility is waveform the early globular universe may have had an uneven expanding structure which transforms this uneven out of balance structure to have collapsing uneven pressure in one direction a vertical movement if uneven on one side can reestablish itself into a horizontal movement generating rotation. Without going any further with more possibilities This is a big question to answer and can never be proven nor can be disproven just like all the mainstream possibilities put out there by mainstream science after all not all can be correct only one true answer out of many.
If we assume gravity is a force, like the other three forces of nature, when mass lowers potential due to gravity, energy should be given off. Going from higher to lower potential releases energy. This gravity based energy output, if absorbed by other mass, should result in what appears to be an anti-gravity affect, if this theory is correct. The analogy is a hydrogen atom lowering energy level will give off a photon of energy. If this photon is absorbed by a different hydrogen atom, it will go to a higher energy level; mirrored action and reaction.
When stars begin to form from a cloud of dust, water crystals, and hydrogen gas, the mass will start to rotate, with the rotation creating a centrifugal force, the vector of which opposes the direction of gravity. The centrifugal force vector, created by the action/reaction rotation, goes in the opposite direction of gravity. There is a coordinated action and reaction, due to the exothermic output from gravity. The action of gravity explains the reaction rotation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies, since they all have the common feature of gravity acting and lowering potential.
Since these rotations do not always exactly cancel gravity, especially in the early formation of stars, the excess energy output, from the action of gravity, will go outward beyond the object. It will have an impact on larger and larger scale rotations, all the way to the universe. This explains why the universe appears to be expanding relative to the galaxies. They are isolated relative to each other by the action of their own gravity. Their constant exothermic output, due to constant star formation, is creating an antigravity affect onto each other. Dark energy may well be the exothermic output from gravity. Dark energy is not new but an old thing that was renamed. It is the exothermic output from the entire universe lowering gravitational potential.
Another way to look at this is via GR. If the action of gravity is causing space-time to contract as defined by GR, than the exothermic output, as gravity lowers potential energy, should cause space-time to expand, elsewhere. This is what dark energy does. While the centrifugal force created, which opposes gravity, seems to appear anywhere gravity acts. If we flush the toilet, gravity is lowering potential and rotation appears. The direction of rotation does not alter the direction and magnitude of the centrifugal force vector; still an anti-gravity in affect.
Thank you for this very detailed account of physics at work but I'm not sharp enuff to determine as to whether your in agreement with a rotating universe or not in agreement with my theory
-
I thought I would just throw one more spanner in the works. Regarding my rotating universe. Let's say we could see the entire universe from its outside just like we can see the Andromeda galaxy maybe the universe looks just like that a universe with spiral arms a spiral universe filled with spiral galaxies. If the milky way was only visible out to a thousand light-years we would not know that it was spiral there for our visible universe is just a drop in the ocean we can not see enough of it to see the true spiral shape as its rapid expansion is outpacing its light.
-
One of the reasons nobody can see dark energy in the lab, nor has anyone seen the exothermic output from gravity in the lab; same thing, is this type of potential is not exactly a particle or a wave, since is connected to time potential. A wave forms in 2-D; space-time. This type of potential is 1-D; time, frequency/rotations. We cannot see time potential with space-time sensitive tools, but can infer it by time based affects; mathematical time
Think of it this way. According to GR, as mass decreases distance, mass lowers gravitational potential and space-time contracts. GR and gravity are dependent on distance and mass, but not time. Whether we contract the mass fast or slow, today or tomorrow, once the same distance is reached, we get the same space-time contraction. In essence, when gravity is acting, time is being dragged along; via the unity of space-time, and is being induced to slowdown, by virtue of GR, as a function of distance.
When space-time contracts there is less potential in distance; GR. When time is induced to slow, via the unity of space-time, there is more potential in time. We will age slower in contracted time, allowing us to exist longer in terms of any fixed standard of time. All the forces and atoms of our body will adjust in time, so the laws of physics can remain the same in our slower reference. Time will lead distance due to the extra time potential. Distance potential is too low to lead; GR.
There is a potential, in time, that is added by gravity, based on only mass and distance influencing the unity of space-time in GR. The gravitational potential in distance is lowered as gravity acts, but the potential in time increases. This creates a lingering potential in time. Potential in time, has a tell and will impact things, based on the units of time; frequency/rotations or 1/t. An object orbiting the earth lingers in time, relative to gravity. Eventually its runs out of countering time potential and the orbit will start to decay led by GR and distance potential.
The resultant centrifugal force induced by rotations have an antigravity affect. Since this vector is opposite gravity, instead of distance leading time, like gravity, we get time potential leading distance via time-space to make it easier to isolate and investigate. The inertia and angular momentum of a large star rotation, perpetuates in time, because gravity induces a permanent time potential in the core, that expresses itself via time-space; rotations.
The curvature of space-time appears to be connected to time potential, since curved lines that meet back on itself is the basis of a rotation.
-
Do you mean what started to rotate the universe
Yes.
Or rather, how is it possible?
Ok, I will try my best. This will be the biggest question to answer regarding my rotating universe. I can only speculate and attempt to answer this with multiple possibilities first we must remember that all of the bodies seen within the seeable universe are rotating what could rotate the whole picture well maybe many other pictures what has been described by the physicist as multiverses many universes reacting on each other. Another possibility is waveform the early globular universe may have had an uneven expanding structure which transforms this uneven out of balance structure to have collapsing uneven pressure in one direction a vertical movement if uneven on one side can reestablish itself into a horizontal movement generating rotation. Without going any further with more possibilities This is a big question to answer and can never be proven nor can be disproven just like all the mainstream possibilities put out there by mainstream science after all not all can be correct only one true answer out of many.
If we assume gravity is a force, like the other three forces of nature, when mass lowers potential due to gravity, energy should be given off. Going from higher to lower potential releases energy. This gravity based energy output, if absorbed by other mass, should result in what appears to be an anti-gravity affect, if this theory is correct. The analogy is a hydrogen atom lowering energy level will give off a photon of energy. If this photon is absorbed by a different hydrogen atom, it will go to a higher energy level; mirrored action and reaction.
When stars begin to form from a cloud of dust, water crystals, and hydrogen gas, the mass will start to rotate, with the rotation creating a centrifugal force, the vector of which opposes the direction of gravity. The centrifugal force vector, created by the action/reaction rotation, goes in the opposite direction of gravity. There is a coordinated action and reaction, due to the exothermic output from gravity. The action of gravity explains the reaction rotation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies, since they all have the common feature of gravity acting and lowering potential.
Since these rotations do not always exactly cancel gravity, especially in the early formation of stars, the excess energy output, from the action of gravity, will go outward beyond the object. It will have an impact on larger and larger scale rotations, all the way to the universe. This explains why the universe appears to be expanding relative to the galaxies. They are isolated relative to each other by the action of their own gravity. Their constant exothermic output, due to constant star formation, is creating an antigravity affect onto each other. Dark energy may well be the exothermic output from gravity. Dark energy is not new but an old thing that was renamed. It is the exothermic output from the entire universe lowering gravitational potential.
Another way to look at this is via GR. If the action of gravity is causing space-time to contract as defined by GR, than the exothermic output, as gravity lowers potential energy, should cause space-time to expand, elsewhere. This is what dark energy does. While the centrifugal force created, which opposes gravity, seems to appear anywhere gravity acts. If we flush the toilet, gravity is lowering potential and rotation appears. The direction of rotation does not alter the direction and magnitude of the centrifugal force vector; still an anti-gravity in affect.
Thank you for this very detailed account of physics at work but I'm not sharp enuff to determine as to whether your in agreement with a rotating universe or not in agreement with my theory
I am in agreement with your theory. I was showing you how to explain a source of energy for your theory. The exothermic output, from gravity lowering potential, causes the rotations of stars. Gravity acting on the entire mass of the universe, via all the galaxies, will give off the energy needed to rotate the universe.
Eventually when gravity reaches steady state, and the exothermic output slows and stops, the universe will start to contract. The analogy is the exothermic output from gravity is like hot air filling up a ballon. Once the heat is shut off; steady state galaxies, the balloon starts to deflate; rotating universe will spiral inward.
-
Do you mean what started to rotate the universe
Yes.
Or rather, how is it possible?
Ok, I will try my best. This will be the biggest question to answer regarding my rotating universe. I can only speculate and attempt to answer this with multiple possibilities first we must remember that all of the bodies seen within the seeable universe are rotating what could rotate the whole picture well maybe many other pictures what has been described by the physicist as multiverses many universes reacting on each other. Another possibility is waveform the early globular universe may have had an uneven expanding structure which transforms this uneven out of balance structure to have collapsing uneven pressure in one direction a vertical movement if uneven on one side can reestablish itself into a horizontal movement generating rotation. Without going any further with more possibilities This is a big question to answer and can never be proven nor can be disproven just like all the mainstream possibilities put out there by mainstream science after all not all can be correct only one true answer out of many.
If we assume gravity is a force, like the other three forces of nature, when mass lowers potential due to gravity, energy should be given off. Going from higher to lower potential releases energy. This gravity based energy output, if absorbed by other mass, should result in what appears to be an anti-gravity affect, if this theory is correct. The analogy is a hydrogen atom lowering energy level will give off a photon of energy. If this photon is absorbed by a different hydrogen atom, it will go to a higher energy level; mirrored action and reaction.
When stars begin to form from a cloud of dust, water crystals, and hydrogen gas, the mass will start to rotate, with the rotation creating a centrifugal force, the vector of which opposes the direction of gravity. The centrifugal force vector, created by the action/reaction rotation, goes in the opposite direction of gravity. There is a coordinated action and reaction, due to the exothermic output from gravity. The action of gravity explains the reaction rotation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies, since they all have the common feature of gravity acting and lowering potential.
Since these rotations do not always exactly cancel gravity, especially in the early formation of stars, the excess energy output, from the action of gravity, will go outward beyond the object. It will have an impact on larger and larger scale rotations, all the way to the universe. This explains why the universe appears to be expanding relative to the galaxies. They are isolated relative to each other by the action of their own gravity. Their constant exothermic output, due to constant star formation, is creating an antigravity affect onto each other. Dark energy may well be the exothermic output from gravity. Dark energy is not new but an old thing that was renamed. It is the exothermic output from the entire universe lowering gravitational potential.
Another way to look at this is via GR. If the action of gravity is causing space-time to contract as defined by GR, than the exothermic output, as gravity lowers potential energy, should cause space-time to expand, elsewhere. This is what dark energy does. While the centrifugal force created, which opposes gravity, seems to appear anywhere gravity acts. If we flush the toilet, gravity is lowering potential and rotation appears. The direction of rotation does not alter the direction and magnitude of the centrifugal force vector; still an anti-gravity in affect.
Thank you for this very detailed account of physics at work but I'm not sharp enuff to determine as to whether your in agreement with a rotating universe or not in agreement with my theory
I am in agreement with your theory. I was showing you how to explain a source of energy for your theory. The exothermic output, from gravity lowering potential, causes the rotations of stars. Gravity acting on the entire mass of the universe, via all the galaxies, will give off the energy needed to rotate the universe.
Eventually when gravity reaches steady state, and the exothermic output slows and stops, the universe will start to contract. The analogy is the exothermic output from gravity is like hot air filling up a ballon. Once the heat is shut off; steady state galaxies, the balloon starts to deflate; rotating universe will spiral inward.
Well thank you very much you have made a real effort to explain what I am seeing in my mind's eye. I won't insult you by pretending to understand your explanation as my degree of understanding is rather limited however thank you again for your agreeance.
-
, the mass will start to rotate,
No.
It was already rotating.
That's the conservation of angular momentum.
It's a lot easier to see the rotation when the stuff is more crowded together,and the angular velocity increases which also makes it more clear.
But it was rotating before it came together.
One of the reasons nobody can see dark energy in the lab,
The only reason we can't see dark matter in the lab is that it doesn't interact with ordinary matter (from which all our experimental kit is made) except via gravity which is a rather feeble force. I won't insult you by pretending to understand your explanation as my degree of understanding is rather limited however thank you again for your agreeance.
His explanation does not make sense.
It relies on things that aren't real.
-
I thought I would just throw one more spanner in the works. Regarding my rotating universe. Let's say we could see the entire universe from its outside just like we can see the Andromeda galaxy maybe the universe looks just like that a universe with spiral arms a spiral universe filled with spiral galaxies. If the milky way was only visible out to a thousand light-years we would not know that it was spiral there for our visible universe is just a drop in the ocean we can not see enough of it to see the true spiral shape as its rapid expansion is outpacing its light.
The fact remains that the universe would look red shifted in some directions (and we see that it is) but it would unshifted or blue shifted in others (and we see that it is not).
There's really no way round that fact
-
I thought I would just throw one more spanner in the works. Regarding my rotating universe. Let's say we could see the entire universe from its outside just like we can see the Andromeda galaxy maybe the universe looks just like that a universe with spiral arms a spiral universe filled with spiral galaxies. If the milky way was only visible out to a thousand light-years we would not know that it was spiral there for our visible universe is just a drop in the ocean we can not see enough of it to see the true spiral shape as its rapid expansion is outpacing its light.
The fact remains that the universe would look red shifted in some directions (and we see that it is) but it would unshifted or blue shifted in others (and we see that it is not).
There's really no way round that fact
There are stars that are blue shift and neutral in fact the andromeda galaxy is in the blueshift as the Milkyway and andromeda galaxy are on a colision corse.
-
There are stars that are blue shift and neutral in fact the andromeda galaxy is in the blueshift as the Milkyway and andromeda galaxy are on a colision corse.
As you say, we know that there are some blue shifted stars, and we know why.
But a model in which the expansion is driven by spin would mean that there were great swathes of space where almost all the stars were blue shifted.
And that's not what we see.
-
I thought I would just throw one more spanner in the works. Regarding my rotating universe. Let's say we could see the entire universe from its outside just like we can see the Andromeda galaxy maybe the universe looks just like that a universe with spiral arms a spiral universe filled with spiral galaxies. If the milky way was only visible out to a thousand light-years we would not know that it was spiral there for our visible universe is just a drop in the ocean we can not see enough of it to see the true spiral shape as its rapid expansion is outpacing its light.
The fact remains that the universe would look red shifted in some directions (and we see that it is) but it would unshifted or blue shifted in others (and we see that it is not).
There's really no way round that fact
There are stars that are blue shift and neutral in fact the andromeda galaxy is in the blueshift as the Milkyway and andromeda galaxy are on a colision corse.
What is interesting about this is we appear to live in an area of the universe, where space-time between galaxies is not expanding relative to those galaxies. We appear to be situated in a dark energy dead zone. The universe is expanding relative to the galaxies, but not around here, or else we should have a red shift.
Like I mentioned before, heat and energy, when in contact with matter, will flow from hot to cold. The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift. Galaxies give off a lot of heat and energy into the space between, which is composed of cold rarified matter.
If energy and photons could travel the length of the universe and not hit any matter, the wavelength will not change. But if the photons encounter matter; hot to cold, it original emissions can change, due to the cooling red shift. The total red shift we see, may not be exclusively due to motion, especially as things get farther away and even rarified matter interaction with energy becomes inevitable. The blue shift with Andromeda has the least amount of cooling red shift due to the small distances that the photons have to travel.
The idea of a rotating universe makes sense from the POV of General Relativity. Space-time is curved due to matter and gravity. A plot of the universe would be better represented on spherical coordinates, instead of on cartesian coordinates. This would make it clear that motion through space-time would follow curved lines like rotations do. We still have the tendency to place the universal globe on a flat map, where curves in 3-D become lines in 2-D. The rotations predicted by GR appear to flatten out due to this plotting schema.
I think it was Einstein who said; to paraphrase, that a light shined into space, will not just keep going outward to the end of the map and fall off the edge. Rather it will follow curved space-time and return to where it started on the globe.
-
The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift.
Please cite a source for this.
-
What is interesting about this is we appear to live in an area of the universe, where space-time between galaxies is not expanding relative to those galaxies. We appear to be situated in a dark energy dead zone. The universe is expanding relative to the galaxies, but not around here, or else we should have a red shift.
Once again you have completely misunderstood what is going on. We do not live in some special area! Every galaxy in every part of the universe will be attracted to other galaxies that are close to them, IOW galaxies close to other galaxy (where ever they are) will be blue shifted relative to each other.
Sometimes I wonder if one of these days you might say something that is not completely made up ignorant bull crap. If you did I would probably have a heart attack but I think I am safe though, since you never spout nothing but pseudoscience.
-
For the benefit of Just Thinking, this:
The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift.
Please cite a source for this.
is the scientists polite way of saying, "You are talking bollocks- if you think you are not, then prove it."
-
We live in a very strange universe or so it seems I do believe the universe has windows but for now the blinds are shut. I don't believe that there will ever be a telescope or a space mission that will uncover the truth. The universe would have to reverse its intention for us to know it in full. We will always be in ore we will always try and learn our classroom materials are limited we will stay in first grade forevermore. I wish I could add more to my rotating universe theory but for now, I'm stuck maybe if I ask my parents for a bigger telescope for Christmas.
-
Any ideas for this theory.
-
Any ideas for this theory.
What theory?
-
What theory?
Why the universe is expanding/getting bigger/getting larger/getting more massive/growing in size/becoming bigger/putting on weight/maturing/getting older/obesity/huge/over the horizon/topping the scales/ to far gone.
-
Why the universe is expanding/getting bigger/getting larger/getting more massive/growing in size/becoming bigger/putting on weight/maturing/getting older/obesity/huge/over the horizon/topping the scales/ to far gone.
That's not a theory.
-
That's not a theory.
It's the greatest theory of the last two or maybe even the last three centuries. Even the average nobody wanted to know the answer to this very interesting and mind boggling question that's why I have put forward this exclusive and productive explanation so the average Joe can benefit from my knowledge. There is no need to thank me as I do this for the benefit of all mankind. PS If there is anything else that I can explain please don't hesitate to ask. And one other thing I have a blackboard at home and a modern whiteboard as well that has E=MC box on it so I do know what I'm talking about. And it has other digits and things on it as well. I'm still here I almost forgot to mention I am a mathematical genius as I have a Casio calculator.
-
The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. If you look closer, an expansion of space-time does just that. Time moves faster as space-time expands. This increases the rate at which entropy increases. It amplifies the second law.
The analogy is the twin paradox. In this scenario each twin is boiling water, with boiling water increasing the entropy of the water. The twin that ages faster will boil more water thereby increasing universal entropy faster. The other twin who ages slower boils less water and thereby increases entropy, but not as much.
Since mass and gravity will contract space-time, this will slow time and causes the rate of entropy increase to slow compared to a standard reference without mass. This slowing of universal entropy increase, is still an increase, but slower. This drop in the rate of entropy can be compensated for, if the space between expands space-time, so the rate of entropy increase, can increase in these gaps.
In a sense gravity is causing the expansion of the space between galaxies, because the concentration of matter within the galaxies slows the second law, locally, in time and space. The expansion of space-time, if integrated with galaxy gravity, could balance this out so the rate of entropy increases can normalize. We called the connected energy dark energy. Dark energy is connected to gravity.
If we have two masses M separated by a distance D, there is gravitational potential energy. If we make the two mass meet, this potential lowers. Where does the extra energy go to satisfy energy conservation? It goes into action and reaction, where the exothermic output from the mass contraction; galactic gravity, is reflected by rotations and space-time expansion, both of which increase the entropy rate elsewhere.
-
That's not a theory.
It's the greatest theory of the last two or maybe even the last three centuries. Even the average nobody wanted to know the answer to this very interesting and mind boggling question that's why I have put forward this exclusive and productive explanation so the average Joe can benefit from my knowledge. There is no need to thank me as I do this for the benefit of all mankind. PS If there is anything else that I can explain please don't hesitate to ask. And one other thing I have a blackboard at home and a modern whiteboard as well that has E=MC box on it so I do know what I'm talking about. And it has other digits and things on it as well. I'm still here I almost forgot to mention I am a mathematical genius as I have a Casio calculator.
That's not a theory.
-
It's the greatest theory of the last two or maybe even the last three centuries. Even the average nobody wanted to know the answer to this very interesting and mind boggling question that's why I have put forward this exclusive and productive explanation so the average Joe can benefit from my knowledge.
Your theory, which is not a actually a theory, is that the universe is expanding due to the universe rotating. It has been shown in this thread that it is not viable. Many members have given you observational evidence that refutes your idea and yet you still implying that your idea is viable. Did you not understand the problems they pointed out or are you just ignoring the problems?
-
It's the greatest theory of the last two or maybe even the last three centuries. Even the average nobody wanted to know the answer to this very interesting and mind boggling question that's why I have put forward this exclusive and productive explanation so the average Joe can benefit from my knowledge. There is no need to thank me as I do this for the benefit of all mankind. PS If there is anything else that I can explain please don't hesitate to ask. And one other thing I have a blackboard at home and a modern whiteboard as well that has E=MC box on it so I do know what I'm talking about. And it has other digits and things on it as well. I'm still here I almost forgot to mention I am a mathematical genius as I have a Casio calculator.
I think you need to learn some humility. Owning a calculator doesn't make you a "mathematical genius".
-
I think you need to learn some humility. Owning a calculator doesn't make you a "mathematical genius".
Hopefully he was joking, but...
-
Hopefully he was joking, but...
I was only joking. I ran out of real ideas and don't know what to say next .
-
I was only joking. I ran out of real ideas and don't know what to say next
So that entire post was a joke or just the last sentence?
-
So that entire post was a joke or just the last sentence?
My original post is treated as a joke and it is a theory just as is all the other mainstream theories that try to explain the universe. the only difference being is my theory is the correct one. If you can't back your self you may as well be the horse.
-
my theory is the correct one.
Your idea is plainly wrong, as has been pointed out.
-
Your idea is plainly wrong, as has been pointed out.
I think it has some merit to back it up.
-
Your idea is plainly wrong, as has been pointed out.
I think it has some merit to back it up.
You are wrong.
-
You are wrong.
The universe is expanding and physicists are having difficulty with this so my theory is another possibility to the BIG problem.
-
my theory is another possibility
Your idea is not possible- as has been explained.
Why do you think it helps to keep pretending?
-
my theory is another possibility
Your idea is not possible- as has been explained.
Why do you think it helps to keep pretending?
The Wright brother was told that they will never fly but they did. Persistence pays.
-
The universe is expanding and physicists are having difficulty with this
Citation needed. Physicists are not having any difficulty with what seems to be a mathematical necessity.
Why the universe is expanding
A non-expanding solution to Einstein's field equations has been shown to be unstable, so it must be expanding or contracting at a random point in time. That's the why of it.
Anthropic reasoning: A different non-expanding universe would necessarily involve tunings of universal constants not conducive for complex structures necessary for the evolution of observers. Hence only an expanding universe can be observed.
-
The universe is expanding and physicists are having difficulty with this
The difficulty relates to why it is expanding not that it is expanding. Is it expanding due to dark energy or not enough matter or is it too much velocity or maybe lack of gravitational attraction? Or maybe due to the rotation of the universe. who's right and who is wrong.
-
The Wright brother was told that they will never fly but they did. Persistence pays.
No, being right pays
Or maybe due to the rotation of the universe. who's right and who is wrong.
You are wrong for the many reasons given
-
The Wright brother was told that they will never fly
And that was the opinion of people who did not understand the underlying principles (or, indeed realise that if birds can do it...).
However, in the case of your ideas, we are not stating an opinion.
Your ideas will, in fact, not work.
Do you understand the difference?
-
indeed realise that if birds can do it...).
And so to the universe can rotate we just need to be like the wright brothers and work it out.
-
You are wrong for the many reasons given
You just need to see the big picture and it is quite big.
-
And so to the universe can rotate we just need to be like the wright brothers and work it out.
You do not seem to want to understand .
We did "work it out" and the answer is that it can't.
That working out will not change; nor will the answer.
It's not a matter of working out how if could. It's a matter of having worked out why it can't.
You are wasting your time and ours (and the sites bandwidth).
-
You are wasting your time and ours
I was under the impression that puppy power's explanation had cleared up any misunderstanding as it is very complete and understandable. I was delighted to see my theory explained in such detail that strengthened my theory.
-
I was under the impression that puppy power's explanation had cleared up any misunderstanding as it is very complete and understandable.
Essentially nothing he posts is ever right.
His explanation does not make sense.
It relies on things that aren't real.
The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift.
Please cite a source for this.
For the benefit of Just Thinking, this:
The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift.
Please cite a source for this.
is the scientists polite way of saying, "You are talking bollocks- if you think you are not, then prove it."
-
The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift.
Please cite a source for this.
Just thinking's post on why the universe is expanding.
-
The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift.
Please cite a source for this.
Just thinking's post on why the universe is expanding.
So... the next question is, do you know what a circular argument is?
Also do you know what a source is, in this context?
-
So... the next question is, do you know what a circular argument is?
Also do you know what a source is, in this context?
I think we will go in circles no matter where we look and a source will be found in the circular arguments.
-
a source will be found in the circular arguments.
It can't be; and that's the problem.
-
a source will be found in the circular arguments.
It can't be; and that's the problem.
I agree as all the theories to this question of why the universe is expanding have become circular arguments.
-
The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift.
Please cite a source for this.
Just thinking's post on why the universe is expanding.
Bored Chemists routinely lacks common sense and requires someone tell him what to think. Let me explain so even bored chemist can understand. However, he relies on the emotion of trust and not his common sense, so the truth may not set him free.
We can measure heat/temperature by its IR signal; digital pyrometer. Different temperatures will have different IR wavelengths, If an object cools, due to the flow of heat from hot to cold, the wavelength of the IR being measured will stretch and lower frequency. Doppler shift and cooling will both red shift energy; expand the wavelength of energy. The idea that the Doppler shift equals the entire red shift of the universe is half baked.
Heat can also appear to flow from cold to hot, allowing us to blue shift energy. The heat pump does this by extracting heat from the colder outside and releasing that heat inside where it is warmer. The heating of the inside will cause the measured IR wavelength of the room to shorten; blue shift.
This is not natural and it is not exactly true. It is still based on heat flowing from hot to cold in the compressor and evaporator, with the evaporator colder then outside. But if we model the heat pump as a black box; look at only the input and output, the heat pump appears to move heat from cold to hot.
The black box approach of statistics can be used to do similar magic tricks that appear to defy the laws of nature; appear by chance. This is why I avoid it, since it makes it too easy to cheat. I prefer do it the harder way and look inside the black box. There are often extra gears in there that still follow basic laws of science and not the games of chance.
I like the entropy model for universe expansion. This can interface before t=0. Expanding space-time, moves faster and faster in time, allowing entropy to become processed faster, all else equal. The universe did not always expand at the same rate. This means the source of energy feeding the variable rate of entropy increase, would need to parallel this.
In this model the exothermic output from gravity can account for this; action/reaction equals contraction/expansion. Rotation is also a reaction since the centrifugal force vector in the rotation is opposite gravity; action and reaction. As the galaxies evolved and gravitational potential lowered the expansion got a boost relative to the galaxies.
There a galaxies with too many rotational turns for the amount of time assumed. In this model the extra turns came from a rapid collapse of the matter, maybe due to the action of black holes.
-
Bored Chemists routinely lacks common sense
No; he doesn't.
On the other hand, you are the one who posts tosh
So, lets see your explanation for this claim you made,
The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift.
which is a breach of the conservation of energy.
Don't forget to use the accepted meaning of the phrase "red shift".
(incidentally, posting such nonsense on a science website is at odds with common sense.)requires someone tell him what to think.
No
Let me explain so even bored chemist can understand.
Did it not occur to you that you should have explained it the first time?
Don't you understand that's your job.
It's not as if I'm the only one who pointed out that it was... "unsupported by evidence", is it?
However, he relies on the emotion of trust and not his common sense,
It's remarkable that you are so dim as to not see that those arent the only options.
I actually base my views on evidence.
You were asked for some.
You still haven't really supplied any, have you?
What got red shifted?
It's a term that's applied to radiation in transit.
-
In this model the exothermic output from gravity can account for this; action/reaction equals contraction/expansion. Rotation is also a reaction since the centrifugal force vector in the rotation is opposite gravity; action and reaction. As the galaxies evolved and gravitational potential lowered the expansion got a boost relative to the galaxies.
This makes good sense to me as there is greater velocity the further out there for more centrifugal force applied to the perimeter increasing the velocity expanding the universe.
-
We can measure heat/temperature by its IR signal; digital pyrometer. Different temperatures will have different IR wavelengths, If an object cools, due to the flow of heat from hot to cold, the wavelength of the IR being measured will stretch and lower frequency. Doppler shift and cooling will both red shift energy;
Complete crap. This has nothing to do with a red shift. The temperature is lower so the emitted photon are at a lower energy.
The whole post is pseudoscience.
-
This makes good sense to me as there is greater velocity the further out there for more centrifugal force applied to the perimeter increasing the velocity expanding the universe.
That's too bad since puppypower is supremely ignorant of the physics he is trying to describe.
-
This makes good sense to me as there is greater velocity the further out there for more centrifugal force applied to the perimeter increasing the velocity expanding the universe.
There would be a higher recession velocity along the axis of rotation if your idea were true. That would be easy to detect, but this isn't seen so your hypothesis is falsified. In other words your idea is wrong. If you ignore this fact then you are a pseudo science crank and can join ranks with the other cranks like puppypower. Why you would choose ignorance over knowledge is quite beyond my capacity to understand, but whatever...
-
There would be a higher recession velocity along the axis of rotation if your idea were true. That would be easy to detect, but this isn't seen so your hypothesis is falsified.
The axis of the universe may be as far from us as the porinida areas that are beyond that of optical and radio detection don't forget the universe is rather big but of course you already know that. Unless we are in the very centre of the universe and they belived that over 400 years ago.
-
The axis of the universe may be as far from us as the porinida areas that are beyond that of optical and radio detection don't forget the universe is rather big but of course you already know that.
The point is if there was a center to the universe and the universe was expanding in some preferred direction, no matter where you were in the universe you would be able to detect this non isotropic expansion. This is not seen, therefore the idea has been falsified, end of story.
-
The point is if there was a center to the universe and the universe was expanding in some preferred direction, no matter where you were in the universe you would be able to detect this non isotropic expansion. This is not seen, therefore the idea has been falsified, end of story.
No the point is we do knot no wear we are in the universe and we do not know the shape of the universe and we do not know the size of the universe. If you were blindfolded and spun around in an unknown place would you know where you are and what is around you in a dark place?
-
No the point is we do knot no wear we are in the universe and we do not know the shape of the universe and we do not know the size of the universe.
Which is immaterial, since that has nothing to do with the observation that galaxies at the same distance from earth have the same recession velocities no matter where we look in the galaxy. Again this falsifies your hypothesis.
Unfortunately, it is becoming clear you are going to ignore evidence and just stick with made up stuff. One more joins the ranks of the anti-science crew.[shrug]
This is for you and puppypower: "If you make up one thing and I make up one thing now we both have two made up things".
-
If you make up one thing and I make up one thing now we both have two made up things".
Or, I know one thing you know nothing now we both know one thing. See it works for all even you. You have now learnt something so rejoice in the moment and be happy. If you have any other technical questions please don't hesitate to ask.