- Status
I like liver and onions....<br /><br /><br /><br />-- ummm... so who designed you?<br /><br />s--
llharmonicaman - I don't know if the universe is round, btw.<br /><br />However, note that spin would increase as diameter decreases such that any spin before the acceleration of expansion at the big bang, and even more so at inflation, would be incredibly more rapid than now.<br /><br />It would likely be imperceptible even at the distances, and hence past time, we view in telescopes.<br /><br />Spin would, of course, effect shape.<br /><br />Again, I do not know if our universe has had spin.<br /><br />I also do not know if our universe began as a singularity, or simply at a very small radius considerably smaller than Planck length, for example.<br /><br />Or, in fact, at the intersection of branes as in one of the collision of branes models for the origin of our universe.<br /><br />Or, the intersection of other dimensions - compare the above poster's reference to a 5th dimension, and compare String theories.<br /><br />I do not understand why you seem to consider the existence of other universes, and hence frames of reference outside of our universe, is impossible????
Eric2006 - Ignoring the latter posts, you posted earlier:<br /><br />"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 />Could you elaborate on that model, i.e. could you simplify and add detail?<br /><br />Or some link to where you got the idea? <br />
Science Frontiers<br />ONLINE<br />No. 122: Mar-Apr 1999<br /><br />http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf122/sf122p05.htm<br /><br />Is a singularity worse than a spinning cosmos?<br />Whence the untold billions of stars and galaxies that brighten our night skies? From a "singularity," that's where -- from an infinitely small point in space. The Big Bang hypothesis requires this abandonment of common sense. Both mathematicians and cosmologists instinctively hate singularities. The latter have been trying to exorcise theirs for years. Recently, S. Carneiro, a Brazilian physicist, proposed a way to get rid of this natal singularity but retain the expanding universe. First, he assumes that the universe has been around for an indefinitely (infinitely?) long time, thereby eliminating the problem of origin. Furthermore, this universe was rotating. About 11 billion years ago this spinning universe was transformed into the expanding universe we see today via that clever cosmologists' ploy called a "vacuum phase transition." Carneiro shows how the rotation of the universe-as-a-whole was converted into overall expansion in a paper submitted to the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. <br /><br />But even if all of Carneiro's equations check out, angular momentum still had to be conserved somehow during the phase transition. Simple! The angular momentum of the universe-as-a-whole was transferred to the spins of all the individual planets, stars, and galaxies. In fact, the angular momentum of each astronomical entity, according to Carneiro, is proportional to its (mass)1.7 . This turns out to be pretty close to the astonishing, still-unexplained observation that the angular momentums of planets, stars, and galaxies are proportional to their (masses)2 . <br /><br />(Matthews, Robert; "Cosmic Carousel," New Scientist, p. 19, December 19/26, 1998-January 2, 1999.) <br /><br />Questions. How did the early universe a
Quantum gyroscope could reveal Universe's spin <br />09:00 14 July 2002 <br />Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition <br />Eugenie Samuel <br /> <br />Enlarge image<br />Spin experimentRelated Articles<br />Quantum wormholes could carry people <br />23 May 2002 <br />Spiral galaxy spins the wrong way <br />8 February 2002 <br />Hypergravity experiment in a spin <br />21 March 2002 <br />Search New Scientist <br />Contact us <br />Web Links<br />Cold atom gyroscope, Paris Observatory <br />Abstract, New Journal of Physics <br />Quantum gyroscope <br />A quantum gyroscope could tell us if the entire Universe is in a spin, according to new research by scientists.<br /><br />Physicists used to think it made no sense to say the Universe was or was not rotating. "Rotating relative to what?" asked the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach in 1893. Then Einstein came along. <br /><br />According to his general theory of relativity, if most of the matter in the Universe happens to be spinning, all of space-time will be pulled round with it. If this is the case, the Universe must have been spinning ever since the earliest moments after the big bang. <br /><br />Any overall rotation should appear as strange effects on the paths of free particles, but physicists have never previously come close to working out how to measure this. Now a team led by Wolfgang Schleich at the University of Ulm in Germany have suggested a way to adapt the ring-laser gyros currently used to track rotation in aircraft and satellites. <br /><br />Interference pattern<br />These devices fire laser beams in opposite directions around a fibre-optic ring. If a plane is turning, the laser beam travelling with the rotation has to travel further to catch up with its starting point, so it arrives later than the beam travelling against the rotation. When the beams meet, they create an interference pattern from which it is possible to work out the difference in the arrival times of the two beams, and hence the rate of rotation.<br /><br />Shleic
The "Big Spin" model for gravity (formerly "Inertial Theory of Gravity ", modified). by Dr. Sergey Ivanenko<br /><br />http://www.antigravity.org/BigSpinModelOfGravity.html<br /><br />Let me know what you think of this theory Newtonian or if you have heard of it. I am not familiar with antigravity.org.<br />
Eric2006 - Patience, that will take some study time. I am attending two Bible study meetings today at our Kindgom Hall, and then need to go to work - so please be patient!<br /><br />No, I was not aware of sources referring to universal spin!<br /><br />Thank you for the sources and links.<br /><br />Er - shouldn't this be on the universe spin thread?
Yeah, It should be. I don't know how it ended up on this thread. I think I was using it to define gravity some how. Maybe we should move it over there for now on. Enjoy your day! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram