Register to reply

Any comments on astro-ph/0509230

by melroysoares@hotmail.com
Tags: astroph or, comments, solved
Share this thread:
jacob navia
#235
Oct12-06, 04:43 AM
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

jacob navia
#236
Oct12-06, 04:43 AM
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

jacob navia
#237
Oct12-06, 04:43 AM
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

jacob navia
#238
Oct12-06, 04:43 AM
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

jacob navia
#239
Oct12-06, 04:43 AM
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

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#240
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#241
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#242
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#243
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#244
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#245
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#246
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#247
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#248
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#249
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#250
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]


ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#251
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]

ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
#252
Oct12-06, 04:45 AM
P: n/a
In article <4330052f$0$27407$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> 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.]


Register to reply