Is the Universe rotating???

[Godfree]

There is a very obvious reason why we might want to see the Universe as rotating ,,
Because it destroys the bbt and the slim hope of religions that there was a moment of creation .
Everything we see in the night sky is rotating , the moon rotates around us ,we around the sun the sun around the black hole at the center of the milky way galaxy and the galaxy is supposedly born of the bb so if whatever gave birth to the galaxy is rotating then there was time and a Universe before the big bang.
So , how could we prove/disprove this .
if the bb didn't happen then there would be no rotation??
so if there is no rotation this supports the idea that the bb never happened,
because everything is not from the bang ,
there are plenty who believe there are galaxies as old as 15 billion years,
and the spaces between galaxies is even and in a bang model they would be closer near the bang and further away as they got further out .
This is apparently not the case .

[chaz wyman]

There is a very obvious reason why we might want to see the Universe as rotating ,,
Because it destroys the bbt and the slim hope of religions that there was a moment of creation .

How would it do so, and how could you tell it was rotating?

Everything we see in the night sky is rotating , the moon rotates around us ,we around the sun the sun around the black hole at the center of the milky way galaxy and the galaxy is supposedly born of the bb so if whatever gave birth to the galaxy is rotating then there was time and a Universe before the big bang.

I fail to see how this helps your idea. Just becasue things rotate does not invalidate the BBT, nor does it mean that there was rotation before the BBT.

So , how could we prove/disprove this .
if the bb didn't happen then there would be no rotation??
so if there is no rotation this supports the idea that the bb never happened,
because everything is not from the bang ,
there are plenty who believe there are galaxies as old as 15 billion years,
and the spaces between galaxies is even and in a bang model they would be closer near the bang and further away as they got further out .
This is apparently not the case .

THere is nothing here to support your case.

[Godfree]

Chaz , I don't own a large radio telescope .
What we can do is study the information that is available on the various subjects .
I would presume in a bang model if it were rotating there would be some sort of spiral shape to the Universe .
I havn't been able to find any such information .
there will be people who have run computer simulations .
I havn't found those studies yet .
But like the question about the age of the Universe , I changed the question from "how old is the Universe " etc , to "could the bbt be wrong"
these different angles will reveal more about specifics .
But it is still up to us to decide for ourselves as individuals what it all means

[chaz wyman]

Chaz , I don't own a large radio telescope .
What we can do is study the information that is available on the various subjects .
I would presume in a bang model if it were rotating there would be some sort of spiral shape to the Universe .
I havn't been able to find any such information .
there will be people who have run computer simulations .
I havn't found those studies yet .
But like the question about the age of the Universe , I changed the question from "how old is the Universe " etc , to "could the bbt be wrong"
these different angles will reveal more about specifics .
But it is still up to us to decide for ourselves as individuals what it all means

I'm pretty sure that the bbt will be revised as new discoveries are made.
In the end someone will have to be honest and declared that it will never be possible to say for sure how the universe began, or even IF it began. Most arguments seems circular, at best. (no pun intended).
But in answer to the headline question - it seems to be meaningless.

If they want to insist that nothing can travel faster than light, this would mean that even if the BB moved at the speed of light (even thought this is impossible) then the Universe's diameter could only be X2 light years of the age of the Universe. ie circa 26 billion light years
Problem - they also have to insist that the Universe is not old enough for this to be true.
BUt they want to insist that it is 46 billion light years in diameter. That would mean that stuff has in fact travelled more than the speed of light.
What is the Solution - a fudge called exapansion, which preserves the age of the U and the speed of light.

To me, this seems like crap.

[Godfree]

Chaz , I totally aggree ,the expansion time warp space time crap , is just that to me , a way of trying to make the story fit the facts , instead of the other way round .
We can see out to 13 billion light years in the opposite direction to the bb and there are fully formed galaxies there .This means they only had less than a billion years to form and that they got out there at about 26 times the speed of light???
and then slowed right down ,, and are now accelerating again, pull the other one .The more I look at the bbt the more I realize it's a joke .
The spin from the kings of spin ..America

[lancek4]

The big bang occurred when you suddenly realized you were a conscious human being. It expands or contracts corresponding to what you say about it. It rotates or does not according to how you have come to terms with your big bang.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz , I totally aggree ,the expansion time warp space time crap , is just that to me , a way of trying to make the story fit the facts , instead of the other way round .
We can see out to 13 billion light years in the opposite direction to the bb and there are fully formed galaxies there .This means they only had less than a billion years to form and that they got out there at about 26 times the speed of light???
and then slowed right down ,, and are now accelerating again, pull the other one .The more I look at the bbt the more I realize it's a joke .
The spin from the kings of spin ..America

I'm sure there are good scientific reasons why the collection of theories fit the appearances, but you have to admit that even the Aristotelian universe fits the appearances.
Wittgenstein asked what would it look like? and the answer was the same.
A good scientist will admit that all explanations are temporary.
I still think expansion is a fudge. It answers why there is no universal centre - we are all expanding from every position simultaneously.It's quite an embarrassment that the BB has no point of origin.

[chaz wyman]

The big bang occurred when you suddenly realized you were a conscious human being. It expands or contracts corresponding to what you say about it. It rotates or does not according to how you have come to terms with your big bang.

And this is true of all theories, thoughts and phemomena.

[Rortabend]

I'm sure there are good scientific reasons why the collection of theories fit the appearances, but you have to admit that even the Aristotelian universe fits the appearances.

That's some pretty wonky history of science Chaz. The whole reason why the Aristotelian model of the universe was replaced is that it doesn't fit the appearances, e.g. the moon is not perfectly smooth, Jupiter has moons, sunspots, heavy objects do not fall faster than light objects, etc.

[chaz wyman]

I'm sure there are good scientific reasons why the collection of theories fit the appearances, but you have to admit that even the Aristotelian universe fits the appearances.

That's some pretty wonky history of science Chaz. The whole reason why the Aristotelian model of the universe was replaced is that it doesn't fit the appearances, e.g. the moon is not perfectly smooth, Jupiter has moons, sunspots, heavy objects do not fall faster than light objects, etc.

But given the evidence at the time, the Ptolemaic system fit the appearances better than the Copernican one.
Copernicus' system was far more clumsy and added more epicycles.

Its all about perspective. If you take the earth to be the centre of the Universe then the sun goes round it.

[Rortabend]

I'm sure there are good scientific reasons why the collection of theories fit the appearances, but you have to admit that even the Aristotelian universe fits the appearances.

That's some pretty wonky history of science Chaz. The whole reason why the Aristotelian model of the universe was replaced is that it doesn't fit the appearances, e.g. the moon is not perfectly smooth, Jupiter has moons, sunspots, heavy objects do not fall faster than light objects, etc.

But given the evidence at the time, the Ptolemaic system fit the appearances better than the Copernican one.
Copernicus' system was far more clumsy and added more epicycles.

Its all about perspective. If you take the earth to be the centre of the Universe then the sun goes round it.

You need to be clear what you're talking about here. You made a claim about the Aristotelian universe fitting the appearances but now you have switched to talking about the Ptolemaic system vs Copernicus. I agree with what you say about this but this is irrelevant to your original claim. Aristotelian physics and cosmology was discredited by Galileo, not Copernicus.

[chaz wyman]

That's some pretty wonky history of science Chaz. The whole reason why the Aristotelian model of the universe was replaced is that it doesn't fit the appearances, e.g. the moon is not perfectly smooth, Jupiter has moons, sunspots, heavy objects do not fall faster than light objects, etc.

But given the evidence at the time, the Ptolemaic system fit the appearances better than the Copernican one.
Copernicus' system was far more clumsy and added more epicycles.

Its all about perspective. If you take the earth to be the centre of the Universe then the sun goes round it.

You need to be clear what you're talking about here. You made a claim about the Aristotelian universe fitting the appearances but now you have switched to talking about the Ptolemaic system vs Copernicus. I agree with what you say about this but this is irrelevant to your original claim. Aristotelian physics and cosmology was discredited by Galileo, not Copernicus.

Ptolemy formalised Aristotle's cosmology that insisted upon perfect circles. This presupposition is what held up cosmology for a 1000 years. But Galileo was a Copernican, we really had to wait for Kepler the throw out the circles to replace them with ellipses. When that happened the epicycles could be thrown out too.

But I was not making a point about the detail, but about perspective.

[Rortabend]

Understood. If you are only talking about explaining the apparent motion of the stars, planets, moon and sun then I don't disagree with your original claim.

[chaz wyman]

Understood. If you are only talking about explaining the apparent motion of the stars, planets, moon and sun then I don't disagree with your original claim.

Good.

[lancek4]

The big bang occurred when you suddenly realized you were a conscious human being. It expands or contracts corresponding to what you say about it. It rotates or does not according to how you have come to terms with your big bang.

And this is true of all theories, thoughts and phemomena.

Aaaw yeeeeah! Chaz right on point!