Have we perceived effects that might indicate past spin?<br /><br />Could our universe have had some spin at the big bang which decreased due to expansion so as to be nearly imperceptible?<br /><br />Could spin of a near singularity have been a partial cause of the big bang?<br /><br />Is there a speed limit to spin of a singularity, or a black hole?<br /><br />What is the fastest spin calculated for spinning stars contracting to neutron stars? Black holes?
- Status
<font color="orange"> Have we perceived effects that might indicate past spin? <br /><br /><font color="white"> Unknown with reference to universal spin, but we have observed two major vectors of motion to the universe. These sources of these vectors are called "great attractors". One area of the universe that is in motion in one direction is smaller and exits within the other. <br /><br /><br /><font color="orange">Could our universe have had some spin at the big bang which decreased due to expansion so as to be nearly imperceptible? <br /><br /><font color="white"> Through observational astronomy, there is, at this time, no way of knowing what happened at the time of the big bang. It is believed that the singularity that the big bang originated from was not spinning and that instead of an omni directional explosion, the original point laid down a track of energy packets, which over time, cooled down into the observable matter of the galaxies that we see today. <br /><br /><font color="orange">Could spin of a near singularity have been a partial cause of the big bang? <br /><br /><font color="white">Obviously, there had to be more than one point of singularity in the beginning that caused the big bang. There had to be a causal factor and a second singularity would be it. It wasn’t exactly near us, where we exist today because the universe is over 15 billion years old, but in the beginning we, including what our galaxy is today, was a tiny part of the energy expelled by one of those original singularities. <br /><br />There is no evidence to support a theory that either singularities were spinning at the time of the big bang. An initial spin would lead us to believe that the universe would be like a massive spiral galaxy comprised of galaxies. This is not what we see today. The observable universe appears to be comprised of expanding web like strings of galaxies with vast voids of space separating them. <br /><br /><font color="orange">Is there a speed limit to spin of a singul</font></font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I can envision some kind of hyperbolic corkscrew thingy. Or "inside out" spin if you will.<br /><br />I know that's pretty obtuse, but I can't quite put into words what I see. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
I don't know about the Universe spinning, but if your head spins all the way around, it means you're possessed.<br /><br /><br /><br />?
averygoodspirit - Interesting model. <br /><br />Wouldn't the gravity of one singularity, upon approaching another singularity (approaching in some dimension in some much larger universe which contained said singularities) induce spin in both?<br /><br />Before commenting on the UFO reference - I would prefer you simply state how you feel about the Bible?<br /><br />I.e., from whence comes your user name?<br /><br />Are you claiming to be a spirit or possessed by a spirit? <br /><br />Or simply a nice person?
"Wouldn't the gravity of one singularity, upon approaching another singularity (approaching in some dimension in some much larger universe which contained said singularities) induce spin in both? "<br /><br />If both singularities were spinning could it be possible upon approach that the effect would be a cancellation of spin for both? I imagine this would have consequences right? <br /><br />Also, I wonder if clockwise/counterclockwise has any meaning in the fabric of our universe. Is it irrelevant or even an observable thing? Would all singularities have an event horizon?
Eric2006 - First, I had never heard of the two singularities interaction model before, so I am certainly no authority on the model!<br /><br />Exact cancellation of spin would be highly unlikely for such a huge amount of energy,<br /><br />BTW, I understand that at the actual origin no matter existed!<br /><br />This makes the singularity singularly different from a black hole which theoretically has mass, or matter, at its core.<br /><br />Does energy have spin - or can it have spin?<br /><br />I doubt our universe has spin, btw - e.g. it is not indicated in the Bible. <br /><br />If it does have spin we may not be able to observe it easily - rather like detecting Milky Way's spin while lying in bed! <br /><br />In other words, our reference frame which is our visibility horizon or light cone may simply be too small to detect said spin.<br /><br />On the other hand, I do not know of any astronomers trying to detect a nearly imperceptible spin - it may take extraordinary effort to detect!<br /><br />Logically, it would be easier to detect closer to the big bang as expansion would have slowed the spin rate since then.<br /><br />Preferably from before the generation of the CMBR (=cosmic microwave background radiation).<br /><br />Have we observed anything older than the CMBR?
Yeah, how could they ever detect a spin when current theory says there is no "center" to the Universe for it to spin around? What would it spin relative to?<br />I guess it would make more sense if there was a multiverse. Maybe each individual bubble universes could be spinning relative to the others.<br /><br />If the Universe does spin maybe it would account for some of the accelleration of the expansion, the centripetal force?<br /><br />What does the Bible say about possible multiple universes?<br />
Michio Kaku states that, at the present time, there is no observational evidence that the universe is spinning. Although, if it were, it would be extremely difficult to detect. The great mathematician Kurt Godel had a similar idea - he was even able to state that Einstein’s equations do not expressly forbid it. The scientific community (and even Einstein himself) have rejected this possibility, not because it is scientifically impossible, but because there is no observational evidence that it is.
Eric2006 - First, no center is a model - it is not proven though observation fits the Biblical model, in Isaiah 40:22, of our universe stretching out like a fine gauze.<br /><br />There is observational evidence for this stretching, as in the observed expanding threads and filaments of our known portion of universe.<br /><br />A gauze can have a center, but it would be difficult to detect if the stretching of the entire fabric was uniform - make that impossible to detect from our relatively tiny reference point.<br /><br />However, now that our methods of detection have improved vastly since Einstein's time, I am asking again if our universe has some tiny leftover spin from its origin - especially since we can view back in time!<br /><br />The Bible does speak of heaven in the plural, and 1 Kings 8:27 refers to a heaven of the heavens containing heavens.<br /><br />There are other references - if you want I will post them but it is off thread theme!<br /><br />The Bible is silent, to my knowledge, on whether our universe has spin or not.
ContraCommando - Agreed - unless new discoveries have been made - in view of the flood of increased data!<br /><br />Since we do not know how our universe was created exactly; and specifically how our universe was accelerated into a "big bang," it would be reasonable to consider all possibilities - and spin is one of those possibilities.<br /><br />It could account for escape velocity from gravity and the nuclear forces (weak and strong).<br /><br />However, since the origin was too hot for matter to exist for more than mere instants of time this brings up another question:<br /><br />Can energy have spin, such that the singularity of primarily energy could have spin?<br /><br />Can photons be in orbit around a black hole, i.e. within the event horizon?
{this isn't original to me, but still something to ponder}<br /><br />Would we be able to tell if 50.000000000000000000001% of the stuff in the universe spins clockwise, and 49.999999999999999999999 spins counterclockwise?<br /><br />(this grossly simplifies the situation, but try to grasp the point of it)<br /><br />And does this explain anything we see?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
Newtonian:<br /><br /><font color="orange"> averygoodspirit - Interesting model. <br /><br />Wouldn't the gravity of one singularity, upon approaching another singularity (approaching in some dimension in some much larger universe which contained said singularities) induce spin in both? <br /><br /><font color="white"> There is a simple answer to that question and a complicated answer. The simple answer is - No. <br /><br />The complicated answer is No. In the beginning one singularity was all there was in existence. It was everything. It existed with great stability in an extremely small amount of space, like the singularity of a universal super, super, massive black hole. This singularity may have had as much as half of all the mass in the universe. Mass was converted to energy at the time of the big bang, then the energy cooled back into mass in a much greater amount of space over time. Space didn’t become a commodity until everything was no longer everything, but only something. This occurred when a second something came into existence and everything was no longer everything. <br /><br />Everything that the universe is today came from these two singularities. Don’t underestimate their capabilities. They were very strong willed and intelligent living entities, just as they are today. Most human beings can’t conceive of the universe being an intelligent living entity, but it is. Here is the evidence that proves it. We are alive, we exist within the universe and are made of the universe, therefore, even if we were the only life forms in the universe, which of course we are not, the universe would be a living being. <br /><br />We can spin, the earth spins, and galaxies spin, so in that sense, the universe does as well, but does the universe, as a whole, spin? There is, at this time, no human observations that support a theory of universal spin, but since we are a part of the universe, you would have to be outside of the universe to observe universal spin unless th</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Eric2006<br /><br /><font color="orange"> If both singularities were spinning could it be possible upon approach that the effect would be a cancellation of spin for both? I imagine this would have consequences right? <br /><br />Also, I wonder if clockwise/counterclockwise has any meaning in the fabric of our universe. Is it irrelevant or even an observable thing? <br /><br /><font color="white"> In the beginning, before the big bang, I can't tell you if the first singularity was spinning because it looked like a small ball of light, kind of like a phosphorescent pearl set against a solid black background. As the second singularity approached, there was no spin in either singularities because the first singularity lost containment from a steady single point at its side, kind of like letting the air out of a balloon. The second singularity willed itself over to its left in order to be encompassed by the energy emission of the first singularity. At this point in time, the two singularities became as one, within the same expanded space. There was no spin, just a conjoining of two entities. I don't know if the second singularity expanded or not. I never had a frame of reference on that. <br /><br />Before the beginning there was nothing. In the beginning, everything that existed outside of the two singularities, or later, the energy emission of the first singularity, was nothing. It wasn't space; it was absolutely nothing. From our perspective, there is only one universe. God didn't say there were no other Gods, he basically said, don't even go there. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="orange"> Would all singularities have an event horizon?<br /><br /><font color="white"> No. The first one didn't. There was only nothing to feed on.<br /><br /></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Generally we assume the present laws of physics did not exist before the big bang, so we are guessing to speculate what two singularities in a near miss would do. Are you assuming singularities did not have event horizons before the big bang?<br />A Kerr black hole is an interesting idea, but they are likely very rare, as rotational momentum is conserved, so only partial cancelation is likely. Where does the cancelled energy of rotation go?<br />We can speak of counter clockwise and clockwise, if we wish, but it is meaningful only if the axis of rotation are approximately parallel in the X, Y and Z planes. This appears to be rare.<br />Some have speculated that no event horizon is possible for a singularity, but I have no clue regarding the logic of such. Neil
No spin.<br /><br />The universe cannot be spinning because it is a singularity and therefore no point of reference exists against which it could be "Spinning" in relation to.<br /><br />-------<br /><br />I would also like to add my philosophical view of the universe.<br /><br />Our universe is a singularity; it started its existence as a singularity and everything about it still acts like a singularity! Every point in the universe sees itself as the oldest, most rapidly expanding and most "Centered" point in our singularity universe.<br /><br />Even from the perspective of the universe itself, it is still a singularity! Since time began, the universe has expanded into itself at "c", so it has not experienced the passage of time as we perceive it - it still acts like it's a singularity and this view is borne out by our fundamental Laws of Physics!<br /><br />Our singularity is expanding into itself at the speed of time. but it has never lost the attributes of being a singularity. We still exist within an infinitesimal point of time and space.<br /><br /> <br /><i>"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."</i> <br /><br /><b>Douglas Adams</b> (1952 - 2001)
It is theoretically possible to demonstrate the items in the universe have a net spin. (Assuming they have one, a survey of rotating objects and their orientation would yield an answer to this intriguing question.)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
Generally, spinning objects have a flattened shape. So to determine the flattened shape we need to know the edges of what we observe, but since relativity field equations prevent this, we cannot know this right now. Even if we came up with a better math model eventually, we still might have a problem with this question, unless there is some way to find edges of BB. <br /><br />But BB theory is not an accurate predictor of anything yet. It is always modified when it fails in prediction, over and over and over and over and over again. This should tell you something. The red shift is not the indicator of expansion you and others think it is. <br /><br />And as I’ve stated before, classical steady state theory is incorrect also. There was a beginning, but it was far more in the past than what we now think. There is astronomical proof, and one example are binary stars that come from the same source. If a new star spins too rapidly and has a great deal of mass, it will split into two components. These two components gradually separate due to tidal forces. The separation takes far longer for some of the objects we see than a scant 15 billion years. <br /><br />And there are many other issues age related to specific examples that are swept under the rug by the cosmology institution that gets backed by persons of power, prestige, money, etc. They have a vested interest in the status quo, sort of like religion, if you know what I mean.<br /><br />Getting back to the spin question, there is no time if there is no motion. If an object has time relationship, then there is motion. Another issue would be the amount of spin found in a very primal BB. As the universe expanded due to inflation or whatnot, that original spin would now be very, very slow. But if it was spinning rapidly at its very beginning, almost at an infinite rate, then the universe should be flat as a pancake. But I could be wrong.<br /><br />I do not think these speculations of something we cannot know answ
<font color="yellow">No spin. <br /><br />The universe cannot be spinning because it is a singularity and therefore no point of reference exists against which it could be "Spinning" in relation to.</font><br /><br /><br />agree....<br /> ---- /> no other <font color="yellow">"universe"</font> or <font color="yellow">empty space</font>where it could spin <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
and also, spinning requires reffference...<br /><br /><br />analogy:<br /><br /><br />a tennis ball sitting inside a bowl. <br />If the bowl spin clockwise, the tennis ball would seem to spin counterclockwise, but it did not really go that way. It is just by refference.<br /><br />so question will be:<br /><br />is the galaxy spinning or the universe spinning that makes the whole picture seem to spin?<br /><br /><br />(my head goes spinning on this) 
<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>I have two reasons for my two singularity theory which existed prior to the big bang. I’ll give one explanation now. I use the word “theory” loosely because I believe it should be reserved for those men and women who dedicate their lives to the study of science. <br /><br />It all has to do with frame of reference. We, as human beings, live on a single planet located somewhere in the expanded and expanding universe. Consequently, despite our various time zones, which are manmade and dependant upon where we are at any given time on the surface of the planet, all human beings have the same time. Let’s call it earth time. In other words, you don’t live 5 minutes in the past or the future compared to me. Your now and my now are essentially the same with the exception of the difference in the unique space we occupy. As Dr. Einstein said, “Your past, your future, and your now is and always will be different from mine.”, but I believe he was referring to the relativity of the universe and our individual experiences that make us unique. As long as we all live in the same boat, your now isn’t really that different from mine. When one of us leaves the boat, or planet, all bets are off. The differences in our relative times can become huge. This is due to the speed we are each traveling relative to the speed of light as well as our distance apart within the same universe. <br /><br />Extraterrestrials don’t have earth time; they have the time of their planet from which they travel through space to get here. Since they didn’t originate here on earth, their frame of reference with respect to the universe is different than ours. This is why they are considered inter dimensional. Furthermore, they can come into our airspace yesterday, 5 minutes ago, or a period of time in the future. You won’t be able to see them unless they are grounded in, or very close to, our earth time. They can also use advanced, time controlling and energy projection technology we know noth <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
very unique...<br /><br />I admire the concept... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
vogon13 - determining clockwise vs. counterclockwise is rather like determining right or left direction - it depends which way you are facing - i.e. your reference point.<br /><br />Do not confuse this with saying left or right has no meaning. It has meaning and left is opposite of right.<br /><br />Ditto clockwise vs. counterclockwise.<br /><br />If you assume north is up, which is certainly easier since astrononmers use north as up, and the Bible in Job 26:7 also has north as up, then you can determine which galaxies are rotating clockwise or counterclockwise - but remember some will be nearly edge on from this direction.<br /><br />Clearlly, changing one's reference point from north to south would be like turning around (about face) in determining left or right.<br /><br />That being said, I then echo your question:<br /><br />Assuming north is up, is there any bias for clockwise over counterclockwise in galactic spin direction?
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact- Started by Admin
- Replies: 2
-
Watch the Full Pink Moon 2024 bloom in the night sky tonight
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
-
Cosmic fountain is polluting intergalactic space with 50 million suns' worth of material
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This is a possible explanation for why ‘c’ interaction is independent of our speed, maybe
- Latest: Classical Motion
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram