The entire universe may once have been spinning all over the place?

PSI Blog 20200713 The entire universe may once have been spinning all over the place?

Spiral galaxies have revealed a clue about the early universe
NASA, ESA and the Hubble SM4 ERO Team

Egads! Well, at least this shows you don’t have to have a correct theory to come up with useful data. These 200,000 observations show about half of the spirals rotating clockwise (CW) and half rotating counter clockwise (CCW). Of course, microcosms rotate after interacting with their macrocosms in a special way: shear. Shear occurs when one thing moves in the opposite direction as another thing. That’s what we observe when landslides and earthquakes occur. When both sides of the shear plane are not fixed, countervailing rotations occur. You can prove this yourself by rotating one spherical object in contact with another. A CW in one will produce a CCW in the other.

The point of all this is that a microcosm cannot begin to rotate in isolation—least of all in a finite universe surrounded by empty space. Like much of cosmogony, the title to this piece is quite absurd. Do these folks really think the universe could spin willy-nilly in opposite directions at different times? The change in direction would be as miraculous as their imagined explosion of the entire universe out of nothing. And do they really think that would have any influence on spiral galaxy rotation?

Now for the useful stuff:
1.    Again, the finding that half were CW and half CCW is more or less what we would expect for the Infinite Universe. They mention a 2% variation. That is quite uniform for a universe that is infinite and imperfect.
2.    The variation appears greater for distant galaxies than for nearby galaxies. This is as it should be. Measurements farther away are going to be more difficult than those nearby. The plus or minus variation should increase with distance.
3.    Observations from the poles found a couple percent more CCW than CW; from the equator, there were more CW than CCW. This is probably an artefact of the location of measurement.    

No comments: