Any comments on astro-ph/0509230

by melroysoares@hotmail.com
Tags: astroph or, comments, solved
 Share this thread:
 P: n/a Jonathan Silverlight wrote: > There's no problem with the idea of the universe rotating, and according > to George Smoot in "Wrinkles in Time" you don't have to ask "relative to > what ?" (no, I don't understand that. I'm no expert either :-) > Godel found that a rotating universe allows time travel. > And while COBE found evidence that the universe doesn't rotate, didn't > someone look at asymmetries in galactic magnetic fields and claimed that > it does, or at least a very large part of the observable universe does? There are other conceptual problems. Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. The Universe would have to have a center, what would make some point in the universe VERY special and easy to spot... Everything in a rotating body points to its center of rotation. It is a point that is easy to spot. What the book of Smoot is concerned ("Wrinkles in Time") I found only one sentence (p 182) about this: "Also, the absence of rotation of the universe, which we noted during our U2 observations, becomes less of a puzzle in an inflationary universe". Strangely, in the chapter about the U2 observations he writes about a lot of things (The U2 pilots, Lima in Peru, etc etc) but I did not find anything about the rotation of the universe. There is also the talk of Mrs Rubin, that held a conference in december 1950 about "The rotation of the universe". I cite Smoot again (page 143) "Her talk had originally been titled "Rotation of the Universe" but the meeting organizer thought that sounded odd, and so he had changed it to "Rotation of the Metagalaxy". " I would share the feeling of the meeting organizer. A "rotating" universe is completely ridiculous. And note that there is a HUGE difference between a "rotating universe" and a "very large part of the observable universe". I am ready to accept the second if there is data supporting that. But the first is just NONSENSE, and I am sure there will be never any data to support it! Nowhere however, I find any mention of this elementary questions in the book of Smoot. He just writes that he doesn't have any data about the rotation without discussing in detail how could he even consider such an absurdity. jacob
 P: n/a Jonathan Silverlight wrote: > There's no problem with the idea of the universe rotating, and according > to George Smoot in "Wrinkles in Time" you don't have to ask "relative to > what ?" (no, I don't understand that. I'm no expert either :-) > Godel found that a rotating universe allows time travel. > And while COBE found evidence that the universe doesn't rotate, didn't > someone look at asymmetries in galactic magnetic fields and claimed that > it does, or at least a very large part of the observable universe does? There are other conceptual problems. Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. The Universe would have to have a center, what would make some point in the universe VERY special and easy to spot... Everything in a rotating body points to its center of rotation. It is a point that is easy to spot. What the book of Smoot is concerned ("Wrinkles in Time") I found only one sentence (p 182) about this: "Also, the absence of rotation of the universe, which we noted during our U2 observations, becomes less of a puzzle in an inflationary universe". Strangely, in the chapter about the U2 observations he writes about a lot of things (The U2 pilots, Lima in Peru, etc etc) but I did not find anything about the rotation of the universe. There is also the talk of Mrs Rubin, that held a conference in december 1950 about "The rotation of the universe". I cite Smoot again (page 143) "Her talk had originally been titled "Rotation of the Universe" but the meeting organizer thought that sounded odd, and so he had changed it to "Rotation of the Metagalaxy". " I would share the feeling of the meeting organizer. A "rotating" universe is completely ridiculous. And note that there is a HUGE difference between a "rotating universe" and a "very large part of the observable universe". I am ready to accept the second if there is data supporting that. But the first is just NONSENSE, and I am sure there will be never any data to support it! Nowhere however, I find any mention of this elementary questions in the book of Smoot. He just writes that he doesn't have any data about the rotation without discussing in detail how could he even consider such an absurdity. jacob
 P: n/a Jonathan Silverlight wrote: > There's no problem with the idea of the universe rotating, and according > to George Smoot in "Wrinkles in Time" you don't have to ask "relative to > what ?" (no, I don't understand that. I'm no expert either :-) > Godel found that a rotating universe allows time travel. > And while COBE found evidence that the universe doesn't rotate, didn't > someone look at asymmetries in galactic magnetic fields and claimed that > it does, or at least a very large part of the observable universe does? There are other conceptual problems. Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. The Universe would have to have a center, what would make some point in the universe VERY special and easy to spot... Everything in a rotating body points to its center of rotation. It is a point that is easy to spot. What the book of Smoot is concerned ("Wrinkles in Time") I found only one sentence (p 182) about this: "Also, the absence of rotation of the universe, which we noted during our U2 observations, becomes less of a puzzle in an inflationary universe". Strangely, in the chapter about the U2 observations he writes about a lot of things (The U2 pilots, Lima in Peru, etc etc) but I did not find anything about the rotation of the universe. There is also the talk of Mrs Rubin, that held a conference in december 1950 about "The rotation of the universe". I cite Smoot again (page 143) "Her talk had originally been titled "Rotation of the Universe" but the meeting organizer thought that sounded odd, and so he had changed it to "Rotation of the Metagalaxy". " I would share the feeling of the meeting organizer. A "rotating" universe is completely ridiculous. And note that there is a HUGE difference between a "rotating universe" and a "very large part of the observable universe". I am ready to accept the second if there is data supporting that. But the first is just NONSENSE, and I am sure there will be never any data to support it! Nowhere however, I find any mention of this elementary questions in the book of Smoot. He just writes that he doesn't have any data about the rotation without discussing in detail how could he even consider such an absurdity. jacob
 P: n/a Jonathan Silverlight wrote: > There's no problem with the idea of the universe rotating, and according > to George Smoot in "Wrinkles in Time" you don't have to ask "relative to > what ?" (no, I don't understand that. I'm no expert either :-) > Godel found that a rotating universe allows time travel. > And while COBE found evidence that the universe doesn't rotate, didn't > someone look at asymmetries in galactic magnetic fields and claimed that > it does, or at least a very large part of the observable universe does? There are other conceptual problems. Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. The Universe would have to have a center, what would make some point in the universe VERY special and easy to spot... Everything in a rotating body points to its center of rotation. It is a point that is easy to spot. What the book of Smoot is concerned ("Wrinkles in Time") I found only one sentence (p 182) about this: "Also, the absence of rotation of the universe, which we noted during our U2 observations, becomes less of a puzzle in an inflationary universe". Strangely, in the chapter about the U2 observations he writes about a lot of things (The U2 pilots, Lima in Peru, etc etc) but I did not find anything about the rotation of the universe. There is also the talk of Mrs Rubin, that held a conference in december 1950 about "The rotation of the universe". I cite Smoot again (page 143) "Her talk had originally been titled "Rotation of the Universe" but the meeting organizer thought that sounded odd, and so he had changed it to "Rotation of the Metagalaxy". " I would share the feeling of the meeting organizer. A "rotating" universe is completely ridiculous. And note that there is a HUGE difference between a "rotating universe" and a "very large part of the observable universe". I am ready to accept the second if there is data supporting that. But the first is just NONSENSE, and I am sure there will be never any data to support it! Nowhere however, I find any mention of this elementary questions in the book of Smoot. He just writes that he doesn't have any data about the rotation without discussing in detail how could he even consider such an absurdity. jacob
 P: n/a Jonathan Silverlight wrote: > There's no problem with the idea of the universe rotating, and according > to George Smoot in "Wrinkles in Time" you don't have to ask "relative to > what ?" (no, I don't understand that. I'm no expert either :-) > Godel found that a rotating universe allows time travel. > And while COBE found evidence that the universe doesn't rotate, didn't > someone look at asymmetries in galactic magnetic fields and claimed that > it does, or at least a very large part of the observable universe does? There are other conceptual problems. Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. The Universe would have to have a center, what would make some point in the universe VERY special and easy to spot... Everything in a rotating body points to its center of rotation. It is a point that is easy to spot. What the book of Smoot is concerned ("Wrinkles in Time") I found only one sentence (p 182) about this: "Also, the absence of rotation of the universe, which we noted during our U2 observations, becomes less of a puzzle in an inflationary universe". Strangely, in the chapter about the U2 observations he writes about a lot of things (The U2 pilots, Lima in Peru, etc etc) but I did not find anything about the rotation of the universe. There is also the talk of Mrs Rubin, that held a conference in december 1950 about "The rotation of the universe". I cite Smoot again (page 143) "Her talk had originally been titled "Rotation of the Universe" but the meeting organizer thought that sounded odd, and so he had changed it to "Rotation of the Metagalaxy". " I would share the feeling of the meeting organizer. A "rotating" universe is completely ridiculous. And note that there is a HUGE difference between a "rotating universe" and a "very large part of the observable universe". I am ready to accept the second if there is data supporting that. But the first is just NONSENSE, and I am sure there will be never any data to support it! Nowhere however, I find any mention of this elementary questions in the book of Smoot. He just writes that he doesn't have any data about the rotation without discussing in detail how could he even consider such an absurdity. jacob
 P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]  P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
 P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]  P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
 P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]  P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
 P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]  P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
 P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]  P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
 P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]  P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
 P: n/a In article <4330052f$0$27407\$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>, jacob navia wrote: >There are other conceptual problems. >Rotation implies a center where the rotation is zero. This is intuitively obvious, so it should come as no surprise that it's not true. In general relativity, there are solutions to the Einstein field equation that describe a Universe that is rotating but that has no center. Specifically, there are homogeneous (but not isotropic) cosmological models in which every point can equally well be regarded as the center of rotation. Remember when you first learned about the expansion of the Universe? Back then, it probably seemed completely obvious that you couldn't have expansion without having a center away from which everything was expanding. After a while, you probably learned enough to get used to the idea of expansion without a center. Most people just haven't spent enough time thinking about rotating cosmological models to get used to the idea of rotation without a center. As others have pointed out, we don't seem to live in such a Universe: observations give a very strict upper limit on the rotation rate. But such a Universe is theoretically possible, so it's a valid and interesting question to ask why we don't live in one. -Ted -- [E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]