# What If The Entire Universe Rotates?

23 replies to this topic

### #18 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 3433 posts

Posted 27 May 2019 - 01:30 PM

I have a question about the discovery of gravity waves. You sound like a good source of info.

When light propagates away from its emitting object, the object moves on from the emission point, but the gravity waves point forever back to that spot, frozen in time, unless bounced or lensed.  I would assume that the discovery of gravity waves causes one to wonder how gravity works.

It's quite simple... gravity is the space and time around you, nothing more nothing less. If water was a vacuum, then its ripples on a surface is a very... simple, maybe not entirely correct analogy, but it works in theory. Space is not nothing.

### #19 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

• Members
• 1921 posts

Posted 27 May 2019 - 02:00 PM

I tend to agree with you about this dubbel it is a great possibility that Dark Energy or H is caused from Spin of the universe it would explain how the universe is able to expand without a known source of input energy at accelerating rates, it just spins at a constant rate and as it expands it has a different value of velocity of expansion based on the radius of the universe just like different sized tops, which would explain accelerating expansion. Have you ever tried to calculate a ω value based on Energy of Expansion and radius of the universe.

Edited by VictorMedvil, 27 May 2019 - 02:11 PM.

### #20 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 3433 posts

Posted 27 May 2019 - 02:58 PM

I tend to agree with you about this dubbel it is a great possibility that Dark Energy or H is caused from Spin of the universe it would explain how the universe is able to expand without a known source of input energy at accelerating rates, it just spins at a constant rate and as it expands it has a different value of velocity of expansion based on the radius of the universe just like different sized tops, which would explain accelerating expansion. Have you ever tried to calculate a ω value based on Energy of Expansion and radius of the universe.

No, not at a constant rate this is where many people get mixed up. A spinning universe decays as a linear expansion takes over.... hence why I have said a number of times, dark flow phenomenon could be taken as the residual primordial spin. The idea it was spinning much faster in the past, than it is today... in fact, it is rotating so slow, that there is no axis radiation background. The so-called ''axis of evil'' is misnomer, there is no axis in the late cosmology because it is no longer spinning fast enough.

### #21 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 09:09 AM

It's quite simple... gravity is the space and time around you, nothing more nothing less. If water was a vacuum, then its ripples on a surface is a very... simple, maybe not entirely correct analogy, but it works in theory. Space is not nothing.

So the ripples are just an echo of the action from the source but no real force? Even waves on water exert a force on anything in the water.  A distant disturbance creates the wave and the water propagates the energy.  When the wave arrives at the object it pushes it up and down and maybe away from the original disturbance.  It's the water that moves the object within it.  I asked if gravity waves are the source of the exertion force, pulling the object in its path back toward the location of emission.  If so, for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction.  If the object has moved away then what is exerting the opposite reaction?  Space itself?  If so, and pulling back toward a location, and not the emitting object, I am struggling to see how obits are stable.  Are you saying that gravity waves are just a remnant of emission of force but do nothing to the things it touches?  So how did it trigger the detectors and how were they able to triangulate back to the very spot where it came from? The emitting object has long since moved away.  The light that followed the detected waves was pointing back to the same spot where the emitting object no longer was, may not even exist anymore.

I am just wondering if we have ever seen an object moving under gravity toward where the gravity emitting object used to be?  We were always taught to think of the force of gravity as acting on the two objects simultaneously, but gravity waves moving at the speed of light seems to call this into question. It does not seem simple.

Edited by RodneyBelieves, 03 June 2019 - 12:26 PM.

• hazelm likes this

### #22 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 3433 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 02:29 PM

I really cannot follow what you are saying at all.

### #23 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:18 AM

In a nutshell, the researchers used the detection of gravity waves to triangulate to where the waves came from.  Within seconds came light from the same source.

For certain the light was pointing back to the location of the emission point.  If the detectors were able to triangulate back to the same position in space, then the gravity waves did not tug the detectors toward the location of the emitting object, but toward the location where the emitter was at the time of emission.  Neither the light nor the gravity waves provide any information about where the emitting object has moved to at the time of observation.

Therefore, is the force of gravity shared between two objects delayed by the propagation of the gravity waves?  If so, the two objects are not actually pulling on each other.  The waves are not attached to the emitting objects.

So, my first confusion is:  Even if the reaction is just a matter of space being warped, how do two objects dealing with a delayed exchange of energy obtain a stable and sustainable orbit?

My second is:  Could an object appear to be getting pulled toward nothing at all?  It could be getting pulled toward a position where a gravity emitter used to be.

(I'm sorry I was not clear, and maybe I am still not.  I deeply appreciate your patience.)

### #24 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

Thinking

• Members
• 19 posts

Posted 19 June 2019 - 11:51 AM

I really cannot follow what you are saying at all.

Thanks for your time. You made me to feel like my thinking and my question are off the wall, but have discovered my question is very valid.  It's probably my ability to express it that's lacking.  I think I found the help I was looking for elsewhere, or at least pointing me in the right direction. Even so, I am grateful for whatever time you gave me.

This is what I found ...

"Want to know something that’s kind of messed up? If that was the only thing that was different from Newtonian gravity, Einstein’s theory would be wrong. The predictions that we’d get for planetary orbits, based on where objects like the Sun and the other planets were 8+ minutes ago [my question exactly] (or whatever the light-travel time for the planet in question was) are different enough from even observations a century ago that General Relativity would have been determined to be false right away. This effect on its own demanded that, if Newton’s theory was right, the speed of gravity be at least 20 billion times faster than the speed of light!

But there is another piece to the puzzle.

The Earth, since it’s also moving, kind of “rides” over the ripples traveling through space, so that it comes down in a different spot from where it was lifted up. It looks like we have two effects going on: each object’s velocity affects how it experiences gravity, and so do the changes that occur in gravitational fields.

What’s amazing is that the changes in the gravitational field felt by a finite speed of gravity and the effects of velocity-dependent interactions cancel almost exactly! The inexactness of the cancellation is what allows us to determine, observationally, if Newton’s “infinite speed of gravity” model or Einstein’s “speed of gravity = speed of light” model matches with our Universe."

Edited by RodneyBelieves, 19 June 2019 - 11:52 AM.