Super Polymath Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 That is physically implausible in my model. It takes energy to rotate a universe, where is the extra energy coming from to exponentially increase rotation? Infinite matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Super Polymath Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 I see no mechanism.The mechanism is gravity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Super Polymath Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 Hoyle and Narlikar on the other hand shows that a primordial rotation does indeed decay. I found from other work by another author the rotation lowers the energy in the Friedmann universe. Beyond that picture, there is no reason why rotation should start up again.The energy is infinite, the energy within our particle horizon is more dispersed & so within our observational frame of reference it looks like the energy is lowered when the spin becomes superluminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Super Polymath Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 Besides... observation of dark flow doesn't conclude it is speeding up anyway. So, it just doesn't make sense.No, dark flow is the result of superluminal rotation, it's not the rotation itself. The galaxies sort of go along for the ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Super Polymath Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) Secondly, why is it increasing? Because the centrifugal force pulls apart the matter, creating expansion. Relative to us, the rotation is increasing from past to present because the angle gets higher due to expansion, thus increasing angular velocity. Edited June 24, 2017 by Super Polymath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Super Polymath Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 You're doing it backwards. Basically, you inflate a black hole to the thermodynamic volume & density of the current universe (which we get 1/18th of based on the CMB), increasing angular velocity exponentially (using special relativity beyond the speed of light for the singularity of a black hole equal to the one in the BBT - way beneath the Planck length b/c this is a black hole with the mass of the entire CMBR - & also when the black hole inflates to a volume greater than the particle horizon) & you give black hole spin as a variable x, you solve for x in 006's ratio; & 006's then & now ratio is by default transformed to accommodate dark flow by replicating that Lambda CDM ratio. So that's what 006 can do, & confirm I'd imagine. Or I could do if I understood some of the terms in his then & now ratio. Then the ratio gives you a general model for SMBH spin, which should be within varied approximations of observational data on SMBH spin... P.S. Assuming this model: Once you've accounted for the number of galaxies in 18x the observable universe, & the directions in which they're spinning using combinatorial math & deriving that 17/18th of unobservable directions of galactic rotation from the CMB, as well as the number of negative gravitational waves being released by the spinning evaporating black holes to rotate, expand, & fuse a near-absolute zero tachyon bath of scattered sub-Planckian Cherenkov radiation from the big freeze into the quark-gluon plasma of the CMB, you can find & manufacture the EXACT anthropic isotope we inhabit, which would be like finding God & reproducing Her.!!! Am I the only one who thinks this is a neat idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

exchemist Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 I have a very complicated subject here that I have to explain to the masses. I am sorry if it can be confusing.Ballocks. It is your hopeless style of communication that is the problem here, not the brilliance of your thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Super Polymath Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 Infinite cyclic reverberating expansions & contractions beneath the Planck length & beyond what the observable CMB shows about what's beyond the current particle horizon. & since gravity's velocity=c; as c changes, so too then does gravity. Matter has no irreducible state, as c changes, you get micro universes going from evaporating black holes to quark-gluon plasma to atoms, you get particles with wavelengths dependent their mass. These particles can be tachyons, these particles can be photons, these particles can be atoms, these particles can be universes. There are 3 dimensions. Time, space, material, gravity, & the fundamental forces are euphemisms for existence & non-existence spiraling around one another eternally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Super Polymath Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 The force of the centrifuge must decrease if rotation decreases. And any torsion would also decrease associated to rotation.infinite matter, therefore infinite torsion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Super Polymath Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 Torsion arises not from matter - as such. It arises from the dynamics of the global vacuum rotating. There is no evidence for infinite matter in this universe. It has a lot of matter, about [math]3 \times 10^{80}[/math] in spacetime but its not an infinite number. Torsion might exist for subsystems, like black holes, but this is different.That's the point. Infinite torsion, infinite angular momentum, relativistic increases in angular velocity via time dilation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

LaurieAG Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 As for something more substantial, I finally found Collins and Hawking’s full paper on THE ROTATION AND DISTORTION OF THE UNIVERSE, and it does not look good for any rotating universe hypothesis. At the bottom of page 13 of his paper "Soft Hair on Black Holes", Stephen Hawking writes that the Compton wavelength [math]\lambda[/math] (is equivalent to) [math]\frac {\hbar}{M}[/math] when he was actually referring to the reduced Compton wavelength [math]\frac{\lambda}{2 \pi}[/math] not [math]\lambda[/math]. If you don't pick this one up your M will become [math]2 \pi[/math] larger than it should be, especially when [math]\hbar[/math] and [math]\lambda[/math] are both constant. .https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

OceanBreeze Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) At the bottom of page 13 of his paper "Soft Hair on Black Holes", Stephen Hawking writes that the Compton wavelength [math]\lambda[/math] (is equivalent to) [math]\frac {\hbar}{M}[/math] when he was actually referring to the reduced Compton wavelength [math]\frac{\lambda}{2 \pi}[/math] not [math]\lambda[/math]. If you don't pick this one up your M will become [math]2 \pi[/math] larger than it should be, especially when [math]\hbar[/math] and [math]\lambda[/math] are both constant. .https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921.pdf Yes, what does that have to do with what you wrote earlier; about the ratio of total matter to visible matter being almost equal to 2π as indicative of a rotating universe? In fact, what does the Compton wavelength have to do with a rotating universe? Edited June 28, 2017 by OceanBreeze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

LaurieAG Posted June 30, 2017 Report Share Posted June 30, 2017 Yes, what does that have to do with what you wrote earlier; about the ratio of total matter to visible matter being almost equal to 2π as indicative of a rotating universe? In fact, what does the Compton wavelength have to do with a rotating universe? The difference between the reduced Compton wavelength and the standard or non reduced Compton wavelength is the same as the ratio between calculated matter and visible matter. Note that any observed photon has a standard or non reduced Compton wavelength that can be converted into a reduced Compton wavelength by dividing by [math]2 \pi[/math]. If you conflate the 2 (and use a unitary c) in the equation below your mass will be out by a factor of [math]2 \pi[/math]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Relationship_between_the_reduced_and_non-reduced_Compton_wavelength Relationship between the reduced and non-reduced Compton wavelengthThe reduced Compton wavelength is a natural representation for mass on the quantum scale. Equations that pertain to inertial mass like Klein-Gordon and Schrödinger's, use the reduced Compton wavelength. The non-reduced Compton wavelength is a natural representation for mass that has been converted into energy. Equations that pertain to the conversion of mass into energy, or to the wavelengths of photons interacting with mass, use the non-reduced Compton wavelength.A particle of mass m has a rest energy of E = mc^{2}. The non-reduced Compton wavelength for this particle is the wavelength of a photon of the same energy. For photons of frequency f, energy is given by[math]E=hf=\frac {hc}{\lambda}=mc^2[/math],which yields the non-reduced or standard Compton wavelength formula if solved for λ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

OceanBreeze Posted June 30, 2017 Report Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) The difference between the reduced Compton wavelength and the standard or non reduced Compton wavelength is the same as the ratio between calculated matter and visible matter. Note that any observed photon has a standard or non reduced Compton wavelength that can be converted into a reduced Compton wavelength by dividing by [math]2 \pi[/math]. If you conflate the 2 (and use a unitary c) in the equation below your mass will be out by a factor of [math]2 \pi[/math]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Relationship_between_the_reduced_and_non-reduced_Compton_wavelength What is your point? Is simply that [math]2 \pi[/math] is involved in both cases? Well, [math]2 \pi[/math] is also involved in the geometry of my dinner plate. What does any of this have to do with a supposed rotating universe? Edited June 30, 2017 by OceanBreeze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.