Is the Universe rotating???

[Godfree]

Steady State ,, Chaz
how big do you imagine the Universe is ???
how old do you think the Universe is ,??
do you believe the Universe is infinite or finite???
for me ,
Infinite in size and time ,
there was no beginning .
there will be no end

[chaz wyman]

Steady State ,, Chaz
how big do you imagine the Universe is ???
how old do you think the Universe is ,??
do you believe the Universe is infinite or finite???
for me ,
Infinite in size and time ,
there was no beginning .
there will be no end

You can believe all you like.
There is simply no way to verify these faith based assertions.

[Godfree]

Verify,,are you going to verify the bbt ,
the rate of expansion is accelerating ,
no space time ???
the Universe is finite ,
Or do you take all of these on faith ,
Just like I had,,!! faith that you would be a help in promoting Atheism .
Seems your just a skeptic wanting to challenge everything<!!!

[chaz wyman]

Verify,,are you going to verify the bbt ,
the rate of expansion is accelerating ,
no space time ???
the Universe is finite ,
Or do you take all of these on faith ,
Just like I had,,!! faith that you would be a help in promoting Atheism .
Seems your just a skeptic wanting to challenge everything<!!!

I've already explained my position on the BBT.

[Godfree]

Verify,,are you going to verify the bbt ,
the rate of expansion is accelerating ,
no space time ???
the Universe is finite ,
Or do you take all of these on faith ,
Just like I had,,!! faith that you would be a help in promoting Atheism .
Seems your just a skeptic wanting to challenge everything<!!!

I've already explained my position on the BBT.

These are all faith based claims /theories.
Your trying to score a point by accusing me of relying on faith rather than fact.
and the BBT is all about faith .
I think thats what you call double standard isn't it .???

[chaz wyman]

Verify,,are you going to verify the bbt ,
the rate of expansion is accelerating ,
no space time ???
the Universe is finite ,
Or do you take all of these on faith ,
Just like I had,,!! faith that you would be a help in promoting Atheism .
Seems your just a skeptic wanting to challenge everything<!!!

I've already explained my position on the BBT.

These are all faith based claims /theories.
Your trying to score a point by accusing me of relying on faith rather than fact.
and the BBT is all about faith .
I think thats what you call double standard isn't it .???

You are, as usual, talking bollocks.
You might not like it but, as is the case with all scientific cosmologies, the currently accepted ones have always "saved the appearances"; nothing to do with faith at all.
Why I think the BBT will be replaced is due to the likelihood of fresh evidence.
Your objection is ideological. You don't like it because you foolishly think it is theistic. Despite showing you the bible (where it is obvious there is no BB), this has not sunk in. You think the BBT is some sort of Christian conspiracy.
That makes you an idiot. As idiotically stupid as a Christian who thinks this supports the account in the bible - IT DOES NOT.

So why not get off your arse and read a few books?

[attofishpi]

Since the galaxies appear to be moving apart at an ever increasing speed, could this suggest that the universe is rotating at an ever increasing rotational velocity and thus permitting this observation?

[Godfree]

Since the galaxies appear to be moving apart at an ever increasing speed, could this suggest that the universe is rotating at an ever increasing rotational velocity and thus permitting this observation?

,,,There are far too many bits of the puzzle missing still to accept the BBT as fact .
When we focus on whats wrong with the BBt ,
it seems a little easier to see there is probably another explanation .
I think the "MOST PROBABLE" explanation is that there was a Universe before any wee bang .
For anything to have happened . there must have been things happening organizing the matter into position to go bang,,according to "godfree logic"
So answer me this , in a bb model surely the galaxies would be close near the center and spread wide at the outer edges ,
This is apparently not the case , evenly spread throughout the Universe .

[Arising_uk]

Does it help if you understand it as spacetime and not Space and Time? As in their model Time is a direction like 'space' its just Spacetime.

[Godfree]

Does it help if you understand it as spacetime and not Space and Time? As in their model Time is a direction like 'space' its just Spacetime.

,,
No ,, what helps is to dismiss it as a piece of religious propaganda .
religion is the one that needs a beginning to time , not Atheism .
What I'm finding more and more , is that spin or political interference ,
is all over the science of the bb

[Arising_uk]

Does it help if you understand it as spacetime and not Space and Time? As in their model Time is a direction like 'space' its just Spacetime.

,,
No ,, what helps is to dismiss it as a piece of religious propaganda .
religion is the one that needs a beginning to time , not Atheism .
What I'm finding more and more , is that spin or political interference ,
is all over the science of the bb

But you appear to be doing the same thing with your atheism? I.e. saying what science should or should not claim. My take is that the metaphysical philosopher had their chance and they took it with science. If what you claim is true then become an astrophysicist or cosmologist and prove them wrong and yourself right.

[Godfree]

Science is very slow to correct it'self .
Olbers Paradox ,the Universe is supposed to be finite because"the night is not a blanket of white ."
and . And then in the same doco , they explain that the background radiation from the bb is so red shifted as to no longer be visible .
As is all very distant stars and galaxies .
So there is proof in the same program that the night sky would not be a blanket of white because it's radio waves are no longer visible light .
Olbers paradox is still used as a proof the universe is finite ,???

[chaz wyman]

Does it help if you understand it as spacetime and not Space and Time? As in their model Time is a direction like 'space' its just Spacetime.

,,
No ,, what helps is to dismiss it as a piece of religious propaganda .
religion is the one that needs a beginning to time , not Atheism .
What I'm finding more and more , is that spin or political interference ,
is all over the science of the bb

But you appear to be doing the same thing with your atheism?

That's what I told him but he wouldn't listen

I.e. saying what science should or should not claim. My take is that the metaphysical philosopher had their chance and they took it with science. If what you claim is true then become an astrophysicist or cosmologist and prove them wrong and yourself right.

[Godfree]

Science is full of contradictions ,
We now know that we can only see about 13 billion light years .
After that it's so red shifted as to be no longer part of the visible spectrum .
and yet they still persist with Olbers Paradox claiming it is proof the universe is finite .
They can see old big galaxies that were old and big 13 billion years ago ,
but they still claim they are all of this wee bang .
Galaxies that have a black hole as big as 18 billion suns at it's center .
Are any of you BB believers going to explain how so much matter was collected in a single point in such a short time ,?????????????????
or will you just continue to rubbish my claims and never answer the questions .

[keithprosser2]

To be dangerously frank, most people who support or attack the BBT are pretty ignorant about it. An I certainly include myself in that. What 'laymen' know about it is gleaned from 'popular science' mags like Sci Am and New Scientist. Most of us are satisfied with metaphors and impressionistic sketches and don't know - or even claim to know - the 'hard science' and quantum-mechanical and General relativitistic calculations involved. Hands up all those who can actually derive the ration of hydrogen and helium in the early universe?

It is dangerous to extrapolate from a simplified metaphor of the BBT. I accept the BBT because it makes intuitive sense, without knowing all the ins and outs. I am not so sure about string theory (or M-theory) because - it appears - that it is so complicated it is hard to even explain it metaphorically! Perhaps when the theory settles down in the minds of the geniuses (and they are geniuses) working on these problems it can be dumbed down so people like me (with a mere BSc in Computer Science!) can make head or tail of it.

So I am not going to make any pontifical statement about the BBT. There is - IMHO - no reason to suppose something like the big bang does not lie at the origin of 'our universe'. I am not too concerned about my ignorance of the details of the BB because my hunch is that nobody - not even the experts - have got all the details sorted out yet, and as it doesn't affect me directly (I'm only naturally curious about it), I am prepared to wait for the boffins to carry on their esoteric work and for Sci Am to tell me about it in words of not more the 3 or 4 syllables - and preferably without recourse to actual equations!