Is our universe spinning slightly?

[newtonian]

averygoodspirit - You posted that you love the Bible, but you make no mention of the author of the Bible: Jehovah.<br /><br />It has become evident that the extraterrestrials you have communicated with are deceptive spirits and therefore you are in danger and I must, in good conscience, pass on the following Biblical warnings:<br /><br />(2 Corinthians 11:14-15) 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. . .<br /><br />(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) . . .But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents 10 and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. 11 So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.<br /><br />(1 John 4:1-8) 4 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. 2 YOU gain the knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, 3 but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s [inspired expression] which YOU have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 YOU originate with God, little children, and YOU have conquered those [persons], because he that is in union with YOU is greater than he that is in union with the world. 5 They originate with the world; that is why they speak [what proceeds] from the world and the world listens

 

[newtonian]

alkalin - Good post. I hadn't heard of the older universe model and evidence - I would have to study that - do you have a link to the evidence or the model?<br /><br />I agree that portions of the big bang theory are shaky.<br /><br />The cause of the big bang is one obvious problem for the theory - and that is why I brought up spin - just trying to contemplate how our universe was created, and how expansion was initiated.<br /><br />I believe Jehovah incorporated energy in plural forms, the hint being at Isaiah 40:26 which links the existence of stars to plural forms of God's dynamic energy.<br /><br />That being said, it still leaves the exact manner of creation to be discovered - and incorporating spin in some way is certainly one possible factor.<br /><br />So how old do you think our universe is actually?

 

[newtonian]

harmonicaman - I agree we exist in an infinitesimal time and space compared with our universe.<br /><br />And that would, of course, make detection of spin in our universe very difficult indeed!<br /><br />This is also what the Bible teaches, e.g.: <br /><br />(Isaiah 40:17) 17 All the nations are as something nonexistent in front of him; as nothing and an unreality they have been accounted to him. (see context)<br /><br />(James 4:14) . . .For YOU are a mist appearing for a little while and then disappearing. . .<br /><br />This is also scientifically accurate - e.g. from Andromeda the very existence of our entire planet would be almost imperceptible!<br /><br />And our average 70 or 80 year life span (Psalms 90:10) is tiny in time compared witht he age of our universe.<br /><br />The rest of your post centers on the singularity at the big bang.<br /><br />To respond better I need to know what definition of "singularity" you are using.

 

[newtonian]

nexium (Neil) - I also to not know if a singularity has an event horizon - but if it did it was breached at the beginning of our universe.<br /><br /> I do not assume our universe at the beginning was a singularity - and certainly not necessarily some specific definition of a singularity and its properties.<br /><br />It may simply have had a tiny diameter, perhaps shorter than Planck length, or perhaps similar to theorized tiny dimensions in String theory.<br /><br />I.e. I also consider the possibility that the beginning was a point of intersection of two branes as in collision of branes models - compare 2 singularities, etc.<br /><br />Or the interaction with another universe, or another dimension.<br /><br />The intersection of dimensions could be a point, which would be comparable to a singularity.<br /><br />Or the intersection could be a 2-d line, perhaps straight, perhaps not.<br /><br />Remember, there could be many dimensions involved at the origin.<br /><br />I have no idea how spin could involve more than 4 dimensions, btw.<br /><br />My question was simple: 3-d spin.

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>Newt -</b><br /><br />I like this short definition for "The Singularity":<br /><br /><i>"The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. The initial moment of the cyclopean explosion very well remains a mystery — however, astronomers and physicists believe that after the tiniest fraction of a second, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force separated, which probably caused the Universe to begin inflating. The Big Bang itself created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today."</i><br /> <br /> - By: K Shaban, CS/Physics Student, Carnegie Mellon<br /><br />Also note that "The Singularity" has not expanded outward. (There is nothing outside of "The Singularity" for it to expand into.) The Big Bang inflation of the universe (the creation of time and space) is taking place entirely within "The Singularity". <br /><br />"The Singularity" itself is not expanding its Event Horizon; space is only being created within "The Singularity"! The universe is expanding inside-out from within this infinitesimally small point! <br /><br />The universe is bigger than the box it comes in! Our Laws of Physics (E=mc², etc.) seem to support this philosophical view of the universe.<br /><br />I also dismiss any notions of multiple Singularities and other multi-universe models merely on logic and principle. They are all violations of Occham's Razor! (I know this is a cheap cop-out, but what the hey!) K.I.S.S, - Keep It Simple Stupid!<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[Leovinus]

I don't know why, but the idea of a spinning universe never occurred to me. Could part of the reason for the expansion of the universe be in the centrifugal force of the spinning matter? But I also heard that the expansion is accellerating. Does that mean the universe is spinning faster as it expands? That sounds counter to conservation of angular momentum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

The Hannes Alfven process of plasma electromagnetics with some gravity thrown in for good measure is the model I prefer. This is a slow growth process flowing outward from the edges, so it is very unlikely there would be a spin to it.<br /><br />Still, without knowing where the edges of the universe are, we cannot say when it all began. <br /><br />In terms of how you refer to it, I believe it would be like stretching out as a fine gauze, and if it is at the edges, so much the better, in my view. <br /><br />Frankly I do not understand the fixation on something as undeterminable as a beginning of it all anyway. Why are we not just in aw and wonder of it as we see it now??? Astronomy actually is a thrill to me, but the cosmological notions as to how to interpret it all is still at the level of primitives. But if I had said children instead of primitives, boy would I be in big trouble.<br /><br />To find out more about Hannes Alfven and his theories just do a web search of his name. He is a Nobel Lauriat.<br /><br />I can also supply a web site for double star research, if you like, but in my view, the results are not very accurate yet. There are a bunch of unknowns, but probably far less than in any category of BB theory.<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

The universe cannot spin entirely if it does not have a center of mass. A center of mass implies a region different from the non-center, a dense region with a super-large black hole, because the matter in that center would easily buzz around each other. Also, it would make sense for some that the center of rotation also be the center of expansion. What dynamic effects that have on rotation? Would the expansion of the universe make the rotation neglible? The acceleration causing the rotation is important. It is unlikely that the acceleration be very high if the Milky Way is far from the center. Also the acceleration would have to vary due to different radii from the center. Also, since galaxies that move further out undergo less acceleration towards the center, the further out from the center, the less dense the region would have to be (assuming our understanding of gravity applies here). Expansion effects may cancel out this gravitational attraction (such that the attraction is non-existent) - or beyond such that the galaxies would make more of a logarithmic spiral.<br /><br />It is possible that the edge of the universe be the surface of really large black holes and that our galaxy somewhere in safe region of the least gravitational time dilation, according to the Cyclical Multiverse Theory.<br /><br />http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Cyclic_Multiverse_Theory

 

[averygoodspirit]

Newtonian:<br /><br /><font color="orange"> averygoodspirit - You posted that you love the Bible, but you make no mention of the author of the Bible: Jehovah. <br /><br /><font color="white"> Jehovah is not the author of the Bible. The Bible was written or authored by many human beings. God and Jesus Christ are referenced many times, but in the original Hebrew, the name Jehovah was thought too sacred to write so they substituted the word Lord. You obviously agree because in an above post you quoted from the book of John among others. The book of John was written or authored by John.<br /><br /><font color="orange"> It has become evident that the extraterrestrials you have communicated with are deceptive spirits and therefore you are in danger and I must, in good conscience, pass on the following Biblical warnings:<br /><br />In view of your claim to be receiving information about our universe from extraterrestrials, be aware that while they speak some truth, they mix in deceptions, half truths and even lies. <br /><br /><font color="white"> You are being presumptuous. In the above posts, I didn’t say anything about receiving that information from extraterrestrials. You don’t know anything about extraterrestrials. How can justify stating that it is evident they are deceptive spirits and that I am in danger. <br /><br /><font color="orange"> While I will be polite to you, I will not respond to any communication you have received from these spirits and I am absolutely opposed to them and have nothing to do with them. <br /><br /><font color="white"> It sounds to me like you are a bit paranoid. That’s understandable. Fear of the unknown is a normal human response. <br /><br /><font color="orange"> If you would like help breaking free from their influence, I will try to help you.<br /><br /><font color="white"> If you are ignorant with regard to extraterrestrials, opposed to extraterrestrials and will have nothing to do with them, then in what way do you feel qualified to help me break free</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Kmarinas86,<br /><br />You may have touched on an important point, that inflation would cause a spread of objects everywhere on a radial basis from the center. Is this what we see? If not, then I must question inflation as valid. <br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">You may have touched on an important point, that inflation would cause a spread of objects everywhere on a radial basis from the center. Is this what we see? If not, then I must question inflation as valid.</font><br /><br />Inflation is not the same as having a center of the universe, because interpreted in some abstract way inflation theory does not require a center.<br /><br />Can we see inflation? Obviously not. It is the electromagnetic radiation which we see, and the redshifts. Interpreting what causes the redshifts and dimming of light is secondary. We take the accuracy of the numerical measurements for granted. What if we didn't trust the machines? In the same, way, mainstream inflation cosmologists trust their inflation theories. There are closer to the action, since the have the telescopes.<br /><br />Idea: Inflation is only part of the universe...

 

[eric2006]

I'm wondering if a naked singularity is possible. A black hole would rotate faster and faster as it's radius decreased. Wouldn't the object's angular momentum be increased beyond it's mass? The event horizon of the hole would be moving in excess of the speed of light! My guess is that the event horizon would simply disappear from the universe, leaving a naked singularity. I'm trying to invision this model with the big bang singularity. An exposed singularity could have some unusual laws of physics. Maybe our laws of physics are those strange laws. They just don't seem strange to us. <br /><br />No event horizon = Freedom for matter to travel freely into and out of the singularity<br /><br />naked singularity = travel to any point into the past<br /><br />Would there be a way to connect FTL expansion and a naked singularity?????

 

[eric2006]

What would cause our unvierse to constantly accelerate? The easiest way to get a constant acceleration is to use a rotational motion. If the universe is a four dimensional sphere rotates around a fifth dimensional axis, and this axis is orthogonal to 4D hyperplane which includes our universe. <br /><br />If rotation creates centripetal acceleration, which is orthogonal to the universe's space in every point. This centripetal acceleration cause space to curve in vicinity of massive bodies. In the curved areas the acceleration is not orthogonal to the space, which appears to objects as gravity.<br />

 

[newtonian]

averygoodspirit - Off thread theme, but I respond to tangents (and also indulge in them sometimes):<br /><br />I see we disagree on who authored the Bible, though we seem to agree on the writers.<br /><br />The following point is absolutely wrong - you posted:<br /><br />"God and Jesus Christ are referenced many times, but in the original Hebrew, the name Jehovah was thought too sacred to write so they substituted the word Lord."<br /><br />You are misinformed. In the original Hebrew the name of God, translated in English as Jehovah {e.g. Psalms 83:18, King James Version}, is found about 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old Testament) alone.<br /><br />Jehovah is a translation of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, Yod (J in English) He Vau He, i.e. YHWH or JHVH.<br /><br />Lord is a translation of the unrelated Hebew title (not a name) adon or adonay.<br /><br />To substitute Lord for Jehovah is a flagrant violation of translation - then again, as you note, these types of deceptions are all too common among homo sapiens, i.e.: this world.<br /><br />As for the other issues, I will simply drop the subject, except to say someone clearly deceived you as to the name of the author of the Bible.<br /><br />Where did you get that wrong information about the Divine Name in the Bible?

 

[newtonian]

Leovinus - I doubt spinning as a cause of expansion now, as the spin would have greatly decreased due to expansion - compare the figure skater spin as radius of arms decreases or increases.<br /><br />However, spin could have been a factor at the origin of our universe, since the radius then was so much smalleer than now, which would therefore magnify spin exponentially!<br /><br />So, no, spinning is not faster as the universe expands - it is slower.<br /><br />Expansion now has other causes.<br /><br />Remember, there can always be more than one cause for an event - compare hurricanes for example.

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - Well, that is also one of my questions - i.e. black hole spin.<br /> <br />It would seem to me that if the black hole was the result of a spinning star (most stars rotate) the small central area would reach FTL spin rates.<br /><br />But is FTL, i.e. faster than light, spin possible or does this describe a limit to the radius of the core of a black hole?<br /><br />I.e. relating decreasing radius to increase rate of spin.

 

[eric2006]

But if the universe is a hyper-sphere that may not be the case. What would happen to the the radius of a 4D sphere as it expanded? <br /><br />A hypersphere with infinite radius becomes a hyperplane. Since the hyper-sphere representation used is homogeneous, hyperspheres with infinite radiuscan be represented through finite vectors (Minkowsi 4-vector maybe).<br /><br />Let's replace the radius (r) with time.<br /><br />What if the center (radius) is now also the edge?

 

[newtonian]

alkalin - I will research and respond later to your thought provoking post.

 

[eric2006]

"But is FTL, i.e. faster than light, spin possible or does this describe a limit to the radius of the core of a black hole?"<br /><br />I think we would be getting into the speed of gravity, and that is where it leaves my current understanding. I would think that if the event horizon was gone the singularity would be forever gone from our universe. But not according to some models.<br />

 

[sinova]

Eric2006 - The radius is not infinite for our universe.<br /><br />Unless, you replace radius with time as the 4th dimension and stipulate infinite future time.<br /><br />Remember, though, that is a time dependent infinity. At any given moment in time the radius would be finite.<br /><br />What is a Minkowski 4-vector?

 

[eric2006]

It is a mathematical tool to help make<br />correct calculations in special relativity.<br /><br />This is all making my head hurt. I think I am way over my head now and can't even remeber where I was going with this. I think I will make a graceful exit while I still can and leave this one to the advanced intellectuals. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /><br />

 

[alkalin]

Averygoodspirit,<br /><br />Suggestion: What you saw was one of the threads of the fine gauze of the universe; the thread is the basic energy flow between the galaxies and stars within those galaxies. This keeps entropy at bay so that the universe does not run down.<br /><br />This is just part of the developing universe based on plasma effects in preference for gravity. Maybe this is not ‘modern’ cosmology to consider, so this might be discussed further on another forum. What a pity. <br />

 

[solrfusion]

the universe is heating up

 

[solrfusion]

subtract the existing matter and u will see the light of the world light energy=(light + mass)c2<br />

 

[newtonian]

alkalin - off thread theme, but how would plasma effects stop entropy? <br /><br />Our IGM (intergalactic medium) is indeed very hot, as in plasma. It is also ionized. <br /><br />What has been heating up the IGM - this does indeed seem contrary to entropy, i.e. the cooling down universe.<br /><br />I will be glad to discuss this here, btw.<br /><br />Some of the new discoveries in cosmology do make the head spin - segway to thread theme!