The simplest case would be an object that takes a circular path.

Yes. And the requirement for this is that there is a force acting upon the object perpendicular the object's velocity.

For a universal spin, all mass in the universe must also experience this force, perpendicular to it's velocity and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of rotation (barycenter, if you will, similar to solar systems, galaxies, etc.).

This implies that there is a point in the universe that is different for all the other points in the universe. This would be that barycenter, and a mass located at this point would not feel the force felt by all other objects in the universe.

From this point, the universe would look the same in all directions -- "smooth", with no significant variations in mass, or energy, or temperature.

Just like it appears from here on Earth.

It has been argued (successfully IMHO) that every location in the universe can -- likewise -- look like that barycenter. This is a contradiction that I believe proves a barycenter does not exists, and therefore there is no universal rotation.

I believe this is a consequence of the fact that our universe is larger than the distance light has traveled since the start of the universe, and therefore, "no matter where you go, there you are" -- all points in the universe look self-similar.

--------

Alternatively, one could suggest that all matter in the universe has an "average rotation" or spin, and that the cumulative spin of all the matter in the universe sum to a particular non-zero spin value.

I cannot argue that there is some total non-zero spin of the universe. What I know is that such a spin is unmeasurable -- it is impossible to include matter that is outside our light cone (a majority of the mass in our universe). If it cannot be measured, it cannot have an effect, and therefore does not, for all intents and purposes, exist.

There is ***much*** more I could say about this, but I'm outta time -- wheels gotta keep spinning.

 

I'd argue that the Universe is not constrained into a three-dimensional geometry, but rather that at a grander scale its geometry is curved into a fourth spatial dimension. And that even though it might go on expanding indefinitely, it remains encapsulated into said dimension nevertheless.

Acording to the standard model, the Universe was born from a geometric point, and by definition said point had no spatial geometric center. It would be like looking for the center of the surface of a sphere. It simply has none (or said center is everywhere, depending on how you look at the problem). But the sphere does have a center located one dimension beyond its surface.

 

Yes. And the requirement for this is that there is a force acting upon the object perpendicular the object's velocity.

For a universal spin, all mass in the universe must also experience this force, perpendicular to it's velocity and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of rotation (barycenter, if you will, similar to solar systems, galaxies, etc.).

This implies that there is a point in the universe that is different for all the other points in the universe. This would be that barycenter, and a mass located at this point would not feel the force felt by all other objects in the universe.

From this point, the universe would look the same in all directions -- "smooth", with no significant variations in mass, or energy, or temperature.

Just like it appears from here on Earth.

It has been argued (successfully IMHO) that every location in the universe can -- likewise -- look like that barycenter. This is a contradiction that I believe proves a barycenter does not exists, and therefore there is no universal rotation.

I believe this is a consequence of the fact that our universe is larger than the distance light has traveled since the start of the universe, and therefore, "no matter where you go, there you are" -- all points in the universe look self-similar.

--------

Alternatively, one could suggest that all matter in the universe has an "average rotation" or spin, and that the cumulative spin of all the matter in the universe sum to a particular non-zero spin value.

I cannot argue that there is some total non-zero spin of the universe. What I know is that such a spin is unmeasurable -- it is impossible to include matter that is outside our light cone (a majority of the mass in our universe). If it cannot be measured, it cannot have an effect, and therefore does not, for all intents and purposes, exist.

There is ***much*** more I could say about this, but I'm outta time -- wheels gotta keep spinning.

Hi,

I understand where you are coming from with the idea of the scale being so large it is too hard to deal with, but then you know how man is: always inquisitive and always seeking an answer to every possible question that comes up in nature (almost comical sometimes). With that end, there have been suggested ways to determine the rotation, and as I am sure you understand, it doesn't matter how grand the scale it nor how insignificant it is to present day life, the answer is still a quest that some still desired to venture.
One way I think is to try to reconcile all the calculations for the expanse of the universe as to why they are different. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about this to comment much further, I just have read that there have been a few different suggestions for how to do the measurement. Will any of them work out? I don't know. The people behind them seem to think they do that's about all I know at this point.
Do we care, should we care? Of course the scale of distance and time again makes this most likely not significant in our lifetimes just like a lot of other things, but that never stopped us from seeking results before

I may deviate a little from what we usually call a spin though. I may have to think of it as a swirl as well as a spin as that seems to be what we see with large collections of objects that are not tightly bound. Due to some binding however and given enough time, there is a chance it will attain an average net spin where most objects follow that tendency but still with the occasional local swirl. Who knows for sure though this is one of those giant questions that may not be answered perfectly for many years if ever.

 

Yes. And the requirement for this is that there is a force acting upon the object perpendicular the object's velocity.

For a universal spin, all mass in the universe must also experience this force, perpendicular to it's velocity and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of rotation (barycenter, if you will, similar to solar systems, galaxies, etc.).

This implies that there is a point in the universe that is different for all the other points in the universe. This would be that barycenter, and a mass located at this point would not feel the force felt by all other objects in the universe.

From this point, the universe would look the same in all directions -- "smooth", with no significant variations in mass, or energy, or temperature.

Just like it appears from here on Earth.

It has been argued (successfully IMHO) that every location in the universe can -- likewise -- look like that barycenter. This is a contradiction that I believe proves a barycenter does not exists, and therefore there is no universal rotation.

I believe this is a consequence of the fact that our universe is larger than the distance light has traveled since the start of the universe, and therefore, "no matter where you go, there you are" -- all points in the universe look self-similar.

--------

Alternatively, one could suggest that all matter in the universe has an "average rotation" or spin, and that the cumulative spin of all the matter in the universe sum to a particular non-zero spin value.

I cannot argue that there is some total non-zero spin of the universe. What I know is that such a spin is unmeasurable -- it is impossible to include matter that is outside our light cone (a majority of the mass in our universe). If it cannot be measured, it cannot have an effect, and therefore does not, for all intents and purposes, exist.

There is ***much*** more I could say about this, but I'm outta time -- wheels gotta keep spinning.

The universe could be spinning without a axis. There might be vortex chunks of universal sections all in motion instead of a single spin. We are just in one expanding vortex among many others.

 

The universe could be spinning without a axis. There might be vortex chunks of universal sections all in motion instead of a single spin. We are just in one expanding vortex among many others.

that explains why my head is spinning...

 

The universe could be spinning without a axis. There might be vortex chunks of universal sections all in motion instead of a single spin. We are just in one expanding vortex among many others.

Possibly.

Describe an experiment that could prove it.

 

Possibly.

Describe an experiment that could prove it.

A known physics experiment or a much higher Kardashev scale type physics experiment?

Humans are advancing in the anti types energy/size increase way. We are gaining the power to manipulate the smaller and smaller with less and less power. Eventually we might be able to manipulate the fundamentals of space time. At that point, the size of the universe becomes irrelevant.

 

A known physics experiment or a much higher Kardashev scale type physics experiment?

Humans are advancing in the anti types energy/size increase way. We are gaining the power to manipulate the smaller and smaller with less and less power. Eventually we might be able to manipulate the fundamentals of space time. At that point, the size of the universe becomes irrelevant.

​

 

Eventually we might be able to manipulate the fundamentals of space time.

No one's come back with a working example of a fusion reactor, so I doubt it.

 

No one's come back with a working example of a fusion reactor, so I doubt it.

But we have made a fusion bomb and made working examples by kids of non-positive end to end energy gain fusion reactors. Give it a few million years.

 

Give it a few million years.

I wouldn't have to if someone would manipulate the fundamentals of spacetime.

 

I wouldn't have to if someone would manipulate the fundamentals of spacetime.

Exactly. Q

 

Hi,
Carl Sagan: There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth.
C.

 

Hi,
Carl Sagan: There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth.
C.

...and there are a lot of booooks too

 

Big Bang’s hot secret: Here’s how first microseconds of early universe behaved


​

The main challenge in understanding the quark-gluon plasma lies in the strength and complexity of the strong nuclear force. Unlike gravity or electromagnetism, whose behaviors can often be described using neat equations and small corrections, the strong force behaves wildly and unpredictably at the scales relevant to the early universe.

 

Nearly half of the universe’s ordinary matter was uncharted, until now


​

Almost half of ordinary matter is scattered like fine mist, so it’s hard to detect. “This gas is missing in the sense that theoretical models expect that it should be … in certain places,” Hessels says. “But how much of it is where and actually showing that that is true is very difficult because the gas is very, very diffuse.”

 

Big Bang’s hot secret: Here’s how first microseconds of early universe behaved
View attachment 350336
​

Hi,

Here's a question for ya...

If there was no time yet, how could there be any 'behavior'.
I would think that behavior of any kind would require time.

 

Hi,

Here's a question for ya...

If there was no time yet, how could there be any 'behavior'.
I would think that behavior of any kind would require time.

Your answer is in the title itself...

 

Your answer is in the title itself...

Hi,

Well your point is well taken, but I was going back to the very start of everything, if we can even call it that.
How did we get any microseconds at all. I guess we have to assume that they are talking about a time when time has already 'begun', but then how did time 'begin' if there was no time yet.
How did we even get a starting point if there was no such thing as time.
When we look at circuits, we automatically assume there is such a thing as 'time' so we can talk about it in many different ways such as t0, t1, etc., but there we've already come on board assuming that there was such a thing already. Where would be start if there was no such thing as time.
Is it that time can create itself.
The word "start" assumes that there is such a thing as time already. That seems like it would assume that there was also a time at least just before that so that we have a point we can call the starting point.
It's kind of funny when you think about it. I can't even describe this because it requires time for the explanation, which supposedly did not 'exist' before this.
I guess all we can do for now is overlook this paradox.

Not sure if I am looking for an answer, just something to think about. Too many strange questions come up with this stuff anyway (ha ha).

 

Hi,

Well your point is well taken, but I was going back to the very start of everything, if we can even call it that.
How did we get any microseconds at all. I guess we have to assume that they are talking about a time when time has already 'begun', but then how did time 'begin' if there was no time yet.
How did we even get a starting point if there was no such thing as time.
When we look at circuits, we automatically assume there is such a thing as 'time' so we can talk about it in many different ways such as t0, t1, etc., but there we've already come on board assuming that there was such a thing already. Where would be start if there was no such thing as time.
Is it that time can create itself.
The word "start" assumes that there is such a thing as time already. That seems like it would assume that there was also a time at least just before that so that we have a point we can call the starting point.
It's kind of funny when you think about it. I can't even describe this because it requires time for the explanation, which supposedly did not 'exist' before this.
I guess all we can do for now is overlook this paradox.

Not sure if I am looking for an answer, just something to think about. Too many strange questions come up with this stuff anyway (ha ha).

Stephen Hawking did a good job explaining this in A Brief History of Time. Good book. You should give it a read.