All Univeses are Rotating Faster and Faster

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:02:55 -0400, HVAC wrote:

On 10/22/2012 5:52 PM, 7 wrote:
HVAC wrote:

On 10/22/2012 9:38 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
This is the heart of "Convex Space Theory" Fits well with my "Spin is
in Theory" Gave me a my "Electron Structure" Shows in my 5 best
theories how all stuff is "interconnected" My next big step is to
unite all 5 into a simple GUT yes a GUT ,and so far only gravity
stands in my way,but I'm getting warm. TreBert


Since there is no external reference point. How can you tell that the
universe is rotating?

You would measure an inexplicable centripetal acceleration.


Acceleration around what? The center of the universe?

One way to tell if there is an accelerated spin would be if we were
able to measure lateral velocities in addition to the radial
velocities that we get with redshifts. If we were to find that all of
the combined radial and lateral velocities yielded total velocity
vectors that were headed in about the same directions for that area of
space, a Universal spin might then be noted and confirmed.

Of course, at present all we have are the radial velocities as given
to us by the "z", the redshifts, and there is thus far no way to
measure any of the lateral velocities that would yield the actual and
true directions of all those galaxies.

And even if there were a way to measure the lateral velocities, we
would still run into the same problem that the light from those
galaxies would have taken millions and billions of years to reach our
scopes, and could only yield what directions those galaxies were going
millions and billions of years ago.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain."

On 10/24/2012 1:03 AM, Painius wrote:

Acceleration around what? The center of the universe?

One way to tell if there is an accelerated spin would be if we were
able to measure lateral velocities in addition to the radial
velocities that we get with redshifts. If we were to find that all of
the combined radial and lateral velocities yielded total velocity
vectors that were headed in about the same directions for that area of
space, a Universal spin might then be noted and confirmed.

Of course, at present all we have are the radial velocities as given
to us by the "z", the redshifts, and there is thus far no way to
measure any of the lateral velocities that would yield the actual and
true directions of all those galaxies.

And even if there were a way to measure the lateral velocities, we
would still run into the same problem that the light from those
galaxies would have taken millions and billions of years to reach our
scopes, and could only yield what directions those galaxies were going
millions and billions of years ago.


So you're saying that Bert is wrong?









--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:25:43 -0400, HVAC wrote:

On 10/24/2012 1:03 AM, Painius wrote:

Acceleration around what? The center of the universe?

One way to tell if there is an accelerated spin would be if we were
able to measure lateral velocities in addition to the radial
velocities that we get with redshifts. If we were to find that all of
the combined radial and lateral velocities yielded total velocity
vectors that were headed in about the same directions for that area of
space, a Universal spin might then be noted and confirmed.

Of course, at present all we have are the radial velocities as given
to us by the "z", the redshifts, and there is thus far no way to
measure any of the lateral velocities that would yield the actual and
true directions of all those galaxies.

And even if there were a way to measure the lateral velocities, we
would still run into the same problem that the light from those
galaxies would have taken millions and billions of years to reach our
scopes, and could only yield what directions those galaxies were going
millions and billions of years ago.

So you're saying that Bert is wrong?

Neither you nor I have any objective evidence that Bert is right or
wrong. So all I'm saying is that our technology is not advanced
enough, yet, to be able to provide objective evidence.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

On 10/30/2012 1:47 AM, Painius wrote:

So you're saying that Bert is wrong?

Neither you nor I have any objective evidence that Bert is right or
wrong. So all I'm saying is that our technology is not advanced
enough, yet, to be able to provide objective evidence.



And how far must we be able to see before we believe our eyes?











--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:38:32 -0400, HVAC wrote:

On 10/30/2012 1:47 AM, Painius wrote:

So you're saying that Bert is wrong?

Neither you nor I have any objective evidence that Bert is right or
wrong. So all I'm saying is that our technology is not advanced
enough, yet, to be able to provide objective evidence.

And how far must we be able to see before we believe our eyes?

Good question. Perhaps 14 bly?

But when that happens, and I "believe" it will happen soon, the
mainstream will just find a way to "fit" that evidence to the
prevailing creation myth called the "Big Bang".

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

On 10/30/2012 3:09 PM, Painius wrote:


And how far must we be able to see before we believe our eyes?

Good question. Perhaps 14 bly?

But when that happens, and I "believe" it will happen soon, the
mainstream will just find a way to "fit" that evidence to the
prevailing creation myth called the "Big Bang".



Why? Why would anyone want to support an incorrect idea? Wouldn't
physicists be LINING UP to see who would win the Nobel for falsifying
the big bang. All new physics would by necessity be required, this
would be by far the greatest scientific discovery of this century.


So why again do 99% of all theorists adhere to the big bang theory?











--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Oct 30, 3:09*pm, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:38:32 -0400, HVAC wrote:
On 10/30/2012 1:47 AM, Painius wrote:

So you're saying that Bert is wrong?

Neither you nor I have any objective evidence that Bert is right or
wrong. *So all I'm saying is that our technology is not advanced
enough, yet, to be able to provide objective evidence.

And how far must we be able to see before we believe our eyes?

Good question. *Perhaps 14 bly?

But when that happens, and I "believe" it will happen soon, the
mainstream will just find a way to "fit" that evidence to the
prevailing creation myth called the "Big Bang".

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

Painius good point. I can have ideas on age of universe because we
can't as yet seen its center core Also those that add up its
spacetime say they ae only estermating. That goes for theories
too. Reality is if 95% of the universe is missing my 22B is a
better better figure. I would like to know how long it took for 90%
of the hydrogen to form?And then all that helium Also uranium a big
atom. All the water in the universe means a long time of molecule
making. Time to make all those nebula. I see in my 22B half of that
is used in the making of internal shockwaves,, Well the universe
rotation is acceleating,and will expand forever,and going into a flat
structue and this means a cold thined out to close to nothing. Painius
gravity lost in the end. TreBert Seems Convex is stronger than
concave

On Oct 24, 1:03*am, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:02:55 -0400, HVAC wrote:
On 10/22/2012 5:52 PM, 7 wrote:
HVAC wrote:

On 10/22/2012 9:38 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
This is the heart of "Convex Space Theory" *Fits well with my "Spin is
in Theory" Gave me a my "Electron Structure" *Shows in my 5 best
theories how all stuff is "interconnected" *My next big step is to
unite all 5 into a simple GUT *yes a GUT ,and so far only gravity
stands in my way,but I'm getting warm. * TreBert

Since there is no external reference point. How can you tell that the
universe is rotating?

You would measure an inexplicable centripetal acceleration.

Acceleration around what? *The center of the universe?

One way to tell if there is an accelerated spin would be if we were
able to measure lateral velocities in addition to the radial
velocities that we get with redshifts. *If we were to find that all of
the combined radial and lateral velocities yielded total velocity
vectors that were headed in about the same directions for that area of
space, a Universal spin might then be noted and confirmed.

Of course, at present all we have are the radial velocities as given
to us by the "z", the redshifts, and there is thus far no way to
measure any of the lateral velocities that would yield the actual and
true directions of all those galaxies.

And even if there were a way to measure the lateral velocities, we
would still run into the same problem that the light from those
galaxies would have taken millions and billions of years to reach our
scopes, and could only yield what directions those galaxies were going
millions and billions of years ago.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain."

Painius If we could find the spot we are in the universe it would
make a nice reference point. Its amazing that we know the Sun rotates
around the Milky Way once in 225 million years. I think its rotation
speed is going faster,and that the Milky Way is getting bigger. I have
my own thoughts on acceleration I post them. My theories are not
carved in stone. I throw them out like I throw bread out to the
ducks. I get back a lot of soggy bread. Some like my thinking some
don't. Its all part of mother natures balancing act. TreBert

On 10/24/2012 5:32 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:

Painius If we could find the spot we are in the universe it would
make a nice reference point.



Are you ****ing serious? I blame this on Painus for filling your head
with his foolishness.



Its amazing that we know the Sun rotates
around the Milky Way once in 225 million years. I think its rotation
speed is going faster,and that the Milky Way is getting bigger.



Anything goes, huh? No rules of science need apply?



my own thoughts on acceleration I post them. My theories are not
carved in stone. I throw them out like I throw bread out to the
ducks.



Someone should throw YOU out.






--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Oct 24, 2:32*pm, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:03*am, Painius wrote:









On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:02:55 -0400, HVAC wrote:
On 10/22/2012 5:52 PM, 7 wrote:
HVAC wrote:

On 10/22/2012 9:38 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
This is the heart of "Convex Space Theory" *Fits well with my "Spin is
in Theory" Gave me a my "Electron Structure" *Shows in my 5 best
theories how all stuff is "interconnected" *My next big step is to
unite all 5 into a simple GUT *yes a GUT ,and so far only gravity
stands in my way,but I'm getting warm. * TreBert

Since there is no external reference point. How can you tell that the
universe is rotating?

You would measure an inexplicable centripetal acceleration.

Acceleration around what? *The center of the universe?

One way to tell if there is an accelerated spin would be if we were
able to measure lateral velocities in addition to the radial
velocities that we get with redshifts. *If we were to find that all of
the combined radial and lateral velocities yielded total velocity
vectors that were headed in about the same directions for that area of
space, a Universal spin might then be noted and confirmed.

Of course, at present all we have are the radial velocities as given
to us by the "z", the redshifts, and there is thus far no way to
measure any of the lateral velocities that would yield the actual and
true directions of all those galaxies.

And even if there were a way to measure the lateral velocities, we
would still run into the same problem that the light from those
galaxies would have taken millions and billions of years to reach our
scopes, and could only yield what directions those galaxies were going
millions and billions of years ago.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain."

Painius *If we could find the spot we are in the universe it would
make a nice reference point. Its amazing that we know the Sun rotates
around the Milky Way once in 225 million years. *I think its rotation
speed is going faster,and that the Milky Way is getting bigger. I have
my own thoughts on acceleration I post them. My theories are not
carved in stone. I throw them out like I throw bread out to the
ducks. * I get back a lot of soggy bread. Some like my thinking some
don't. Its all part of mother natures balancing act. * TreBert

The gravity of our galaxy is also bringing in and holding onto new
stuff, not to mention our galaxy getting run down by Andromeda.

Helium is diamagnetic, and galaxies tend to generate a great deal of
helium. Molecular diamagnetics is a force of pushing itself away from
a magnetic force. The early universe had hardly any helium to spare.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”