• WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    considers things moving at very close to the speed of light uses Newtonian mechanics

    It’s an interesting idea but this is a pretty massive oversight.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    If it indeed rotates, this raises another question: What does it rotate around, i.e. where is the center of the universe? How does our position in the universe relate to this center, or which (known) structures have we observed there. Could it be the Great Attractor?

    • 3DMVR@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      spiral ever increasing outward, wouldnt the center represent the big bang

      • 3DMVR@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Because time isn’t linear or whatever and its still expanding (I have no idea what im talking about)

      • dbtng@eviltoast.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        I can’t find any flaw in this. I was trying to think of it in any way other than having an actual center somewhere. This can be my model till I understand it better.

  • Headofthebored @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    If you drink enough it won’t take 500 billion years to rotate. In fact, you’ll have to hold onto the grass to keep from falling off the planet.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Scientists propose a lot of stuff. A lot of these proposals are contradictory to each other.

    Still cool.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Obviously it’s spinning in four dimension space. Like living on the 2D surface of an inflating balloon that is rotating, there is no “center” from the perspective of us lower dimensional scrubs.

      • voodooattack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        Ok. So hear me out. What if said 2D universe is spread out on the inside of said balloon and the spinning is happening on two axis? Wouldn’t that make gravity the result of centrifugal force? And what if the balloon is actually flexible, so that the heavier stuff stretches its surface outwards (thus warping time and space around it)?

        I’m no scientist but that’s how I’ve often imagined it. Although it’d have to be in an even higher dimension for more degrees of freedom on rotation? No clue there.

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          No clue haha but that is a neat idea. Also my explanation probably wouldn’t really explain centrifugal force to offset the hubble tension.

          There was also a scishow or spacetime video about how gravity can be seen as an emergent property of “time / causality is slower the nearer the gravity well”, and that is how gravity works. To truly understand it you have to understand the math and how to solve it, afaik our explanations are all rather imaginary. So you could probably interpret the math to mean that this “spacetime bulging” is the result of a spinning universe.

          The bigger question is: Where is the rest of the matter that spins in the other direction? It should have perfectly canceld each other out! (like matter and antimatter also didn’t)

          • voodooattack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            No clue haha but that is a neat idea. Also my explanation probably wouldn’t really explain centrifugal force to offset the hubble tension.

            I think Hubble tension could fit into this if the sphere/balloon is also expanding/growing/stretching away from the centre. In this case it would be the fabric of space being stretched though. So not sure how that’d fit into this model exactly.

            There was also a scishow or spacetime video about how gravity can be seen as an emergent property of “time / causality is slower the nearer the gravity well”, and that is how gravity works. To truly understand it you have to understand the math and how to solve it, afaik our explanations are all rather imaginary. So you could probably interpret the math to mean that this “spacetime bulging” is the result of a spinning universe.

            Yeah. I think so too.

            The bigger question is: Where is the rest of the matter that spins in the other direction? It should have perfectly canceld each other out! (like matter and antimatter also didn’t)

            Dunno tbh. Maybe it’s double-sided and it’s on the other side of the balloon/membrane?

            (And for some reason my brain associates this spinning sphere analogy with gravastars 🤔)

    • corvus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      A center in two dimensions, in three dimensions an axis, in more dimensions…

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Forgive me for strawmanning but you know some idiot is going to say this contradicts “scientists’” claim that the universe is 13.8 billion years old

      • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        I believe the correct term is “spaghettification” and it’s not your ordinary everyday spaghettification, but one that happens at an atomic level.

        • rothaine@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          As long as you find a black hole that leads to the spaghetti universe, it would be fine

      • Sixty@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        It’s this theory here:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#Big_Bang/Supermassive_White_Hole

        edit: While I do like the idea I hadn’t begun to take it seriously until this news about our Universe possibly spinning. It’s one of the few properties of a black hole. The only other possibly persuasive bit of info I’ve personally heard about is that heat death seems awful similar to how black holes evaporate (Hawking Radiation) somehow apparently. I won’t pretend to understand that one.

          • Sixty@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 days ago

            If it ever turns out to be true (I’ll be long dead) that might start to answer my previous question here about what would happen if our black hole was actively or suddenly started consuming matter in the universe or whatever above ours. Still not comforting is the idea of our black hole merging with another.

  • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Cool theory. But should not work if the universe is much larger than what can be seen though? Unless it’s just our visible part of the universe is rotating in a mind boggling large structure? And why not? All matter clumps, and a huge universe should have countless structures that are the size of all we know

    • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think as telescopes get better we just keep noticing bigger structures. Maybe this is just the biggest one we know right now.

      I feel like it’d take some amazing statistics and millions of years of data to detail out structures larger than our observable universe.