Very poetic. It's an interesting hypothesis. Of course a rotating universe would have some interesting implications. The first would be that there is some center point around which the universe rotates. Objects near this center point must be rotating around it at a much faster rate than more distant objects (just as the inner planets rotate around the sun much faster than the outer ones). Is there any observational evidence to indicate where this center point is or even to indicate that it exists (I should think it wouldn't be hard to spot)?

All of the orbital systems that we observe tend to form disks (the solar system, galaxies, etc). Is there any evidence to show that matter is distributed in a disk shape in our universe? Also what is the axis of rotation (I should think there would be some observational evidence that would answer this question assuming the hypothesis is true)? Would this rotation not arrange matter in the universe in a spiral (as in spiral galaxies)? It there any evidence to support a spiral distribution of matter in the universe?

From what I've read on this board, all the galaxies in our super cluster are moving towards a point known as the "great attractor" (the center of gravity for our super cluster). Do you dispute the obersvations on which this is based? If not then it appears that no rotation exists within our super cluster (or insufficient)to counter the effect of gravity. If the analogy breaks down at the level of super clusters, then why should it apply at the universe level?

Also, the convservation of angular momentum explanation of the rotation of planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. assumes this angular momentum came from the coalescing of these objects from larger volumns of matter. If we apply your analogy to the universe then this would imply that the universe has shrunk (in order to generate that angular momentum). This would in turn seem to require that distant objects be blue shifted which is of course the opposite of what is actually observed.

The analogies is nice but unless it is supported by observational evidence, it doesn't really count for much.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: espritch on 2002-06-29 22:06 ]</font>