Jump to content

Plank Telescope discovers NEW details @ 380,000 year junction


Mike Smith Cosmos
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is there a link?

 

Yes if you google Plank Telescope it is there as CTV report . Now universe 13.81 billion years . More Dark matter. , Less Dark energy , Inflation details , also they have found :-

 

The asymmetry “defines a preferred direction in space, which is an extremely strange result,” says Efstathiou.

 

A preferred direction in space , ( guess that means there must be a center to the universe after all )-( speculation me )

 

link To NATURE

 

http://www.nature.com/news/planck-telescope-peers-into-the-primordial-universe-1.12658

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sub-atomic particles spin, electrons "spin" around the nucleus; the Earth spins, and spins around the Sun, the Sun spins, and spins around the galaxy; the galaxy spins, and spins around the local cluster. Perhaps this then spins in the super cluster. If the universe is also spinning, it would have a centre, and it wouldn't need to "inflate". The red shifting of the light would in part be explained by the apparent movement away of objects on differing tangents of that spin. That might also explain why closer galaxies like Andromeda appear blue shifted. They're the kid behind you on the hurdy gurdy, seemingly rushing toward you as they are close to your tangential path. That way we can loose the unknown, unmeasurable dark energy and replace it with what is known within the observeable universe, spin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sub-atomic particles spin, electrons "spin" around the nucleus; the Earth spins, and spins around the Sun, the Sun spins, and spins around the galaxy; the galaxy spins, and spins around the local cluster. Perhaps this then spins in the super cluster. If the universe is also spinning, it would have a centre, and it wouldn't need to "inflate". The red shifting of the light would in part be explained by the apparent movement away of objects on differing tangents of that spin. That might also explain why closer galaxies like Andromeda appear blue shifted. They're the kid behind you on the hurdy gurdy, seemingly rushing toward you as they are close to your tangential path. That way we can loose the unknown, unmeasurable dark energy and replace it with what is known within the observeable universe, spin.

 

I totally agree with you , but I can not get anybody to agree with me that the whole universe is spinning about a center. Their opposition being , "spinning relative to what". ? I say it is just spinning , thus centrifugal force will thrust outward, like Kids on a spinning play ground apparatus.. !

 

 

 

post-33514-0-77869000-1364419112_thumb.jpg

 

 

post-33514-0-51472000-1364419429_thumb.jpg

 

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I see what your talking about. I guess most people dont like accepting new ideas that are different from the ones they were taught as it creates a full new understanding of things they thought they understood.

It's very interesting im going to have a look into this and see what the report says. Thanks for sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the spin direction and shape of the entity are important

a vertical spinning entity will have a different kind of center point rather than an entity spinning horizontally

i'm not sure if these are the right words to use.

 

I'll try to find images of what i'm talking about.

Edited by krash661
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sub-atomic particles spin, electrons "spin" around the nucleus; the Earth spins, and spins around the Sun, the Sun spins, and spins around the galaxy; the galaxy spins, and spins around the local cluster. Perhaps this then spins in the super cluster.

 

All these things are three dimensional. However, the universe is 3D plus time (space-time). For there to be a center of the universe, one would have to know the center of time, which makes no sense to me.

 

If you say, the universe would spin around the point at time zero, then we get to the balloon analogy. At t=0, the balloon is a point with the universe being the three dimensional surface of the balloon. As time passes, the balloon expands, but no point on its surface is the center.

Edited by EdEarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these things are three dimensional. However, the universe is 3D plus time (space-time). For there to be a center of the universe, one would have to know the center of time, which makes no sense to me.

 

If you say, the universe would spin around the point at time zero, then we get to the balloon analogy. At t=0, the balloon is a point with the universe being the three dimensional surface of the balloon. As time passes, the balloon expands, but no point on its surface is the center.

 

 

Why can we not keep it simple. The space we see appears to spread out in all directions . When maps are done of the Universe (all be it that they can only look so far), there appears to be a block of stars. Why can the whole lot not be turning as if it were like a hyper hyper size super galaxy. If so , it must be turning about a center. If you say its standing still. OK. but that would be a fluke surely. Most things tend to move. If his vast massive universe is changing size , it would surely rotate like most of the galaxies. ?

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Universe is rotating about a point, Mike. I can neither verify nor disprove that speculation, and I doubt it affects anyone whether it rotates or not, except via curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Universe is rotating about a point, Mike. I can neither verify nor disprove that speculation, and I doubt it affects anyone whether it rotates or not, except via curiosity.

 

Surely that central point would be quite interesting though. As most central points are like the center of a Galaxy.?

 

. post-33514-0-08515500-1368428578_thumb.jpg

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Universe is rotating about a point, Mike. I can neither verify nor disprove that speculation, and I doubt it affects anyone whether it rotates or not, except via curiosity.

 

If the universe is everything, it cannot move or rotate relative to itself...it would have to be in some other volume for it to rotate relative to.

To think otherwise is equivalent to trying to pick yourself up by your own feet. ;)

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely that central point would be quite interesting though. As most central points are like the center of a Galaxy.?

 

Perhaps, but that center of rotation (if it exists) may be beyond the event horizion that limits our view of the universe.

 

Moreover, it seems illogical that the Universe rotates around a point on the surface of a 4D balloon. Of course, I cannot imagine a 4D balloon. Thus, digress to a 3D balloon. If a 2D universe on the surface of a universe sized 3D balloon is rotating about a point, then galaxies further from the point of rotation would be moving faster than ones near the point of rotation. At some distance from this point of rotation, galaxy movement would become relativistic, and far enough away their movement would need to be faster than the speed of light.

 

If you counter by saying it is space-time that is rotating, then that seems contrary to the BBT. An explosion does not cause rotation of stuff it hurls outward. Of course, the BB is not characterized as an explosion, rather as an expansion, and that may make a difference.

 

The idea peaks my curiosity, and is an interesting speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but that center of rotation (if it exists) may be beyond the event horizion that limits our view of the universe.

 

Moreover, it seems illogical that the Universe rotates around a point on the surface of a 4D balloon. Of course, I cannot imagine a 4D balloon. Thus, digress to a 3D balloon. If a 2D universe on the surface of a universe sized 3D balloon is rotating about a point, then galaxies further from the point of rotation would be moving faster than ones near the point of rotation. At some distance from this point of rotation, galaxy movement would become relativistic, and far enough away their movement would need to be faster than the speed of light.

 

If you counter by saying it is space-time that is rotating, then that seems contrary to the BBT. An explosion does not cause rotation of stuff it hurls outward. Of course, the BB is not characterized as an explosion, rather as an expansion, and that may make a difference.

 

The idea peaks my curiosity, and is an interesting speculation.

 

Good for you ! Keep going ! ( It's an age thing )

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, mainly science. E.g., been checking on biodiesel produced from algae and artificial general intellegence today.

Both sound interesting . However you had better bring them up on a separate thread as the moderators like one subject per thread . However If you have any further thoughts on rotating universe please do share your thoughts here.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the universe is everything, it cannot move or rotate relative to itself...it would have to be in some other volume for it to rotate relative to.

To think otherwise is equivalent to trying to pick yourself up by your own feet. wink.png

 

I have an inkling Isaac Newton got hung up on this one . Spinning a Bucket of water. I am not sure which side he came down on . It was all to do with if or if not, there was anything other than the bucket of water in the universe. got him thinking ! Did the Water rise up the side of the Bucket he mused . Yes if the universe was how it is. But if there was nothing other than the bucket (no Universe ) how would the bucket know it was spinning. Sort of Similar thing with a spinning Universe. Lets do this experiment.. Who is going to do the bucket without a universe . and who is going to tell us if the universe is spinning. or what measurement could we make to detect an out pushing force ( away from the Center ) Centifugal Force wacko.png Back to the motor bikes and the Kids on the playground round about thing

 

post-33514-0-18271800-1368572994_thumb.jpg

 

Would this do this if there was NOT a universe out there beyond the kids playground thing ? Would they know they were spinning . Would they feel the Centrifugal force or would it not exist? confused.gif

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an inkling Isaac Newton got hung up on this one . Spinning a Bucket of water. I am not sure which side he came down on . It was all to do with if or if not, there was anything other than the bucket of water in the universe. got him thinking ! Did the Water rise up the side of the Bucket he mused . Yes if the universe was how it is. But if there was nothing other than the bucket (no Universe ) how would the bucket know it was spinning. Sort of Similar thing with a spinning Universe. Lets do this experiment.. Who is going to do the bucket without a universe . and who is going to tell us if the universe is spinning. or what measurement could we make to detect an out pushing force ( away from the Center ) Centifugal Force wacko.png Back to the motor bikes and the Kids on the playground round about thing

 

attachicon.gifCentraf Toy.jpg

 

Would this do this if there was NOT a universe out there beyond the kids playground thing ? Would they know they were spinning . Would they feel the Centrifugal force or would it not exist? confused.gif

 

Ok. Well I guess it must do this

 

Centrifugal Force wins out ! At last !

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe can be older than 13.8 billion years if you think it can expand at the speed of light or is indefinite in size, we keep discovering the universe to be bigger and bigger and bigger as we develop stronger telescopes and we observe no consistent curvature predicted by the spherical Milne model, we really don't have enough info to determine enough of what the big bang was, or how long ago it happened, all we know is that in our observations of our own observable universe, the observable universe seems to get hotter and denser as you go back in time, and then we run out of info on what the really early observable universe was like. If the observable could only expand at the speed of light then it could easily be 24 billion years old, there's even a star calculated to be around 14 billion years old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283. What if the universe was indefinitely large? This whole "big bang" wouldn't matter and could just be a purely local event.

I all honesty I don't see why scientists think they can even say "there was a beginning", we just don't have enough info, and such an assertion conflicts with our very elementary topological properties we have defined (see dimensions), I like the idea of being able to find almost exactly when the observable universe was created, but we can't jump ahead of ourselves.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.