A team of scientists has proposed a revolutionary idea to explain one of the greatest contradictions in our understanding of the universe: the discrepancy in measuring its rate of expansion, known as the Hubble Tension. According to a study published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro
I think that if space itself is what is rotating, then speed of light limit does not apply. But if it’s everything in the universe orbiting, as it were, a central point, then it would.
But if it is space itself rotating, then that would suggest some objective frame of reference outside the universe. Wouldn’t it?
Not necessarily. Just like space is growing without the need for an objective outside frame of reference, it could be rotating - the rotation is just relative to itself.
I don’t think something can rotate relevant to itself. If all of reality was the earth, and nothing else, how can you tell if it’s spinning or not?
Please use small words if you try to answer this. I know a decent bit of applied physics, but once it turns to pure math, my head starts to swim.
Stuff could move around differently. Rotations have many effects, e.g. rotation curves (the closer you are to the center of the rotation, the faster you go). We could still figure out that the earth is rotating by measuring the effects a rotation has.
You might be onto something.
“It never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was moving!”