ray b said:
first not only can the univerce spin it could be in proper motion too
and while we can't tell if it is happening
that does not mean it can't happen
as many things we thought could not happen
have been later proved true
see you own second bit
we may need or want many things that have no proof
but the lack of data does not mean something is not possible
You're misunderstanding the ideas of "can" and "can't" as they relate to science. When someone says in science something "can't" be done, that generally means it is specifically forbidden by the laws of science. The way you use the word, it implies ignorance: that we don't know/don't have any information one way or the other. But that just isn't the case here.
By definition, the universe is everything there is and even if the universe is finite, there exists no possible reference for measuring the motion you suggest. It is a relatively simple matter of geometry: By definition, motion is measured between two objects. You can't measure a distance/motion in a 3d space unless you have two points to measure between in that 3d space. This hypothetical 'outside' to the universe that you are speculating about does not provide that. You're trying to drive from New York to the Moon.
You've made an assertion here, one that I'm quite certain can't be proven and is actually forbidden by the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean the burden doesn't still exist: you need to explain and substantiate how the universe could spin or be in proper motion. Just asserting it is not enough/isn't allowed.
[edit] And while we're at it, you asserted that "many things we thought could not happen have been later proved true". In context relevant to this thread, you will have quite a bit of difficulty substantiating that as well. There have not been a lot of theories in science that have been just flat wrong because the process of science makes such a thing largely impossible. In order to
be a theory, an idea must already be able to explain evidence. As such, it
can't be completely wrong.
For example, when GR replaced Newton's theory of gravity, it could not be said that Newton's gravity was completely wrong. It wasn't, isn't and won't ever be.
in a year the Earth does NOT return to the very same point in space/time
it's track would look more like a bent cork screw then a simple circle
that was the point of this thread
as far more then the Earth orbit around the sun and the sun's motion
are factors in the question of our speed in space
Also, you are definitely moving the goalposts here, as others have suggested. In that quote right there, you said "our speed through space". Space is what the universe is "made of". So this pseudophilosophical nonsense about the universe moving is quite another matter altogether, not at all related to "our speed in space", which, as others have said, has been quite adequately answered.